Joint Publication 5-0

Joint Operation Planning

26 December 2006
 T his edition of Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, reflects the current doctrine for
conducting joint, interagency, and multinational planning activities across the full range of military operations.
This vital keystone publication forms the core of joint warfighting doctrine and establishes the
framework for our forces’ ability to fight as a joint team.

As our Nation continues into the 21st century, the joint operation planning process and
supporting capabilities will continue to evolve as our forces transform to meet emerging
challenges. The engine for this change in the planning arena is the Adaptive Planning (AP)
initiative.

Adaptive planning is defined as “the joint capability to create and revise plans rapidly and
systematically, as circumstances require.” The Secretary of Defense signed the Adaptive Planning
Roadmap on 13 December 2005, directing that as AP processes and capabilities mature, it will
succeed the Department of Defense’s current planning processes and capabilities. Since the Roadmap
was published, the Contingency Planning Guidance, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, the Joint
Programming Guidance, and the Strategic Planning Guidance have all directed that AP processes
and capabilities be used for the development of Top Priority contingency plans.

This publication incorporates allAPinitiatives currently approved for implementation and complements
the AP processes and procedures defined in the latest version of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Manual 3122.01A, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) Volume I. The next
revision of both the JP 5-0 and the JOPES 3122 series (manuals, instructions and guide) will further
incorporateAP principles and formally establish the adaptive planning and execution system for planning
and executing joint operations.

I encourage all leaders to understand the purpose and intent of the Adaptive Planning initiative,
to study and understand the doctrinal concepts contained in this publication, and to teach these
to your subordinates. Only then will we be able to fully exploit the remarkable military potential
inherent in our joint teams. You should ensure the widest possible distribution of this keystone
joint publication. I further request that you actively promote the use of all joint publications at
every opportunity.

PETER PACE
General, United States Marine Corps
Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
 PREFACE

1. Scope

Joint Publication 5-0 is keystone doctrine for joint operation planning throughout the range
of military operations.

2. Purpose

This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the joint operation planning activities and performance
of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and provides the joint doctrinal
basis for US military coordination with other agencies and for US military involvement in
multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant
commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs). It is not the intent of this publication to
restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner
the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall
objective.

3. Application

a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff; to commanders of
combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these
commands, and combat support agencies; and to the Services.

b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed
except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If
conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications,
this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally
in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current
and specific guidance. Commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or
coalition) military command should follow multinational doctrine and procedures ratified by
the United States. For doctrine and procedures not ratified by the United States, commanders
should evaluate and follow the multinational command’s doctrine and procedures, where
applicable and consistent with US law, regulations, and doctrine.

i
Preface

Intentionally Blank

ii JP 5-0
 SUMMARY OF CHANGES
REVISION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 5-0, DATED 13 APRIL 1995
(INCLUDES CONSOLIDATION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 5-00.1,
“JOINT DOCTRINE FOR CAMPAIGN PLANNING,”
DATED 25 JANUARY 2002)

• Reduces discussion of senior leader planning responsibilities

• Conforms to revised Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual

3122.01A, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES), by
discussing “contingency” and “crisis action” planning, levels of planning
detail, and other changes

• Incorporates the new construct of “strategic communication”

• Reduces discussion of the Joint Strategic Planning System and related

national systems

• Incorporates the “joint operation planning process” (JOPP) to complement

JOPES

• Incorporates discussion of the estimate process from Joint Publication (JP)

3-0, Joint Operations

• Discusses the use of “effects” as an element of operational design in joint

operation planning

• Discusses the commander’s and staff’s roles in joint operation planning

• Expands the discussion of transportation and deployment planning

• Incorporates a detailed discussion of “assessment”

• Incorporates a discussion of developing a “systems perspective” of the

operational environment

• Incorporates relevant information from JP 5-00.1, Joint Doctrine for

Campaign Planning

• Expands the discussion of elements of operational design consistent with JP

3-0, Joint Operations

• Incorporates a hypothetical vignette to help explain the JOPP steps in

Chapter III and elements of operational design in Chapter IV

iii
Summary of Changes

Intentionally Blank

iv JP 5-0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER I
JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING

SECTION A. JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING – TYPES AND SCOPE ........................ I-1

• Introduction ............................................................................................................... I-1
• Joint Strategic Planning.............................................................................................. I-1
• Security Cooperation Planning ................................................................................... I-3
• Force Planning........................................................................................................... I-4
• Joint Operation Planning ............................................................................................ I-4
• The Scope of Joint Operation Planning ..................................................................... I-5

SECTION B. ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES.......................................... I-6

• General ...................................................................................................................... I-6
• Joint Planning and Execution Community .................................................................. I-7
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ......................................................................... I-8
• Combatant Commanders ............................................................................................ I-9
• Subordinate Joint Forces .......................................................................................... I-10
• Combat Support Agencies ........................................................................................ I-10

SECTION C. JOINT OPERATION PLANNING ........................................................... I-11

• General .................................................................................................................... I-11
• Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Overview....................................... I-12
• Global Planning ....................................................................................................... I-22
• Types of Joint Operation Plans and Orders ................................................................... I-23
• Availability of Forces for Joint Operations .................................................................... I-26

CHAPTER II
STRATEGIC DIRECTION

• General .................................................................................................................... II-1

• Strategic Communication ......................................................................................... II-2

SECTION A. NATIONAL-LEVEL SYSTEMS ............................................................. II-3

• Introduction ............................................................................................................. II-3
• National Security Council System ............................................................................ II-3
• Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process ..................................... II-4
• Joint Strategic Planning System ............................................................................... II-4

v
Table of Contents

SECTION B. INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, AND

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................. II-6
• General .................................................................................................................... II-6
• Interagency Planning and Coordination .................................................................... II-6

SECTION C. MULTINATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................... II-9

• General .................................................................................................................... II-9
• Multinational Operations ......................................................................................... II-9
• Multinational Planning and Coordination ................................................................ II-10
• Review of Multinational Plans ................................................................................ II-11

CHAPTER III
THE JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PROCESS

SECTION A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. III-1

• General ................................................................................................................... III-1
• The Commander’s Role in Joint Operation Planning ............................................... III-3
• The Staff’s Role in Joint Operation Planning ........................................................... III-3

SECTION B. THE RELATIONSHIP OF STRATEGIC GUIDANCE, TERMINATION,

END STATE, OBJECTIVES, EFFECTS, AND THE SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE OF
THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................... III-5
• General ................................................................................................................... III-5
• National and Multinational Strategic Guidance ....................................................... III-5
• Termination of Military Operations and the Military End State ................................ III-7
• Military Objectives ............................................................................................... III-11
• Effects .................................................................................................................. III-12
• Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment .............................. III-16

SECTION C. THE JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PROCESS STEPS .................. III-19

• The Joint Operation Planning Process ................................................................... III-19
• Planning Initiation ................................................................................................ III-19
• Mission Analysis .................................................................................................. III-20
• Course of Action Development ............................................................................. III-28
• Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming............................................................ III-30
• Course of Action Comparison .................................................................................. III-32
• Course of Action Approval ...................................................................................... III-34
• Concept of Operations Development ........................................................................ III-34
• Plan or Order Development ..................................................................................... III-41

SECTION D. THE ESTIMATE PROCESS ................................................................. III-51

• The Estimate ......................................................................................................... III-51

vi JP 5-0
 Table of Contents

SECTION E. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT DURING EXECUTION .................... III-55

• Execution ............................................................................................................... III-55
• Assessment ............................................................................................................ III-57

CHAPTER IV
OPERATIONAL ART AND DESIGN

SECTION A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. IV-1

• Operational Art ....................................................................................................... IV-1
• Operational Design ................................................................................................. IV-2
• The Campaign ........................................................................................................ IV-2

SECTION B. OPERATIONAL DESIGN ...................................................................... IV-4

• Strategic Guidance .................................................................................................. IV-4
• Operational Design Elements .................................................................................. IV-4
• Phasing .................................................................................................................. IV-32

APPENDIX

A Flexible Deterrent Options ................................................................................. A-1

B Sample Estimate Format..................................................................................... B-1
C Joint Operation Plan Format ............................................................................... C-1
D References ......................................................................................................... D-1
E Administrative Instructions ................................................................................. E-1

GLOSSARY

Part I Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................... GL-1

Part II Terms and Definitions ............................................................................... GL-4

FIGURE

I-1 Joint Strategic Planning ................................................................................ I-2

I-2 The Joint Planning and Execution Community .............................................. I-7
I-3 Joint Operation Planning Activities, Functions, and Products....................... I-14
I-4 Joint Operation Planning Products .............................................................. I-24
II-1 National Strategic Direction ........................................................................ II-5
III-1 Effects and Command Echelons ............................................................... III-13
III-2 The Interconnected Operational Environment .......................................... III-17
III-3 The Joint Operation Planning Process ...................................................... III-20
III-4 Mission Analysis Key Steps ..................................................................... III-21
III-5 Mission Analysis ..................................................................................... III-23
III-6 Course of Action Characteristics .............................................................. III-28
III-7 Course of Action Development ................................................................ III-29
III-8 Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming .............................................. III-30

vii
Table of Contents

III-9 Sample Wargaming Steps ........................................................................... III-32

III-10 Course of Action Comparison ..................................................................... III-33
III-11 Course of Action Approval ......................................................................... III-35
III-12 Plan DevelopmentActivities ........................................................................ III-42
III-13 Plan Review Criteria .................................................................................. III-50
III-14 Commander’s Estimate .............................................................................. III-52
III-15 Functional Staff Estimates ........................................................................... III-53
III-16 Planning During Execution ........................................................................... III-58
III-17 Assessment Levels and Measures ............................................................... III-60
IV-1 Elements of Operational Design ..................................................................... IV-5
IV-2 Characteristics of Centers of Gravity .............................................................. IV-9
IV-3 Identifying Centers of Gravity ....................................................................... IV-11
IV-4 Analyzing Critical Factors ........................................................................... IV-13
IV-5 Direct Versus Indirect Approach .................................................................. IV-18
IV-6 Sample Physical Line of Operations ............................................................. IV-20
IV-7 Sample Logical Lines of Operations ............................................................. IV-22
IV-8 Notional Operation Plan Phases .................................................................. IV-34
IV-9 Phasing Model .......................................................................................... IV-36
A-1 Examples of Requested Diplomatic Flexible Deterrent Options .......................... A-2
A-2 Examples of Requested Informational Flexible Deterrent Options ....................... A-3
A-3 Examples of Requested Military Flexible Deterrent Options .............................. A-4
A-4 Examples of Requested Economic Flexible Deterrent Options ........................... A-5

viii JP 5-0
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMANDER’S OVERVIEW

• Describes the Nature of Joint Strategic Planning

• Discusses Strategic Communication

• Describes the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System

• Describes the Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP)

• Describes Operational Art, Operational Design, the Design Elements, and

the Relationship to JOPP

• Incorporates “Effects” in JOPP and in the Assessment Process

• Provides a Sample Joint Operation Plan Format

Joint Strategic Planning

Planning for the Military planning is performed at every echelon of command

employment of military and across the range of military operations. Joint planning
forces is an inherent integrates military actions with those of other instruments of
responsibility of national power and our multinational partners in time, space, and
command. purpose to achieve a specified end state. The military’s
contribution to national strategic planning consists of joint
strategic planning with its three subsets: security cooperation
planning, joint operation planning, and force planning.

Joint Operation Planning

Joint operation planning Joint operation planning includes all activities that must be
is the overarching process accomplished to plan for an anticipated operation — the
that guides joint force mobilization, deployment, employment, and sustainment of
commanders (JFCs) in forces. Planners recommend and commanders define criteria for
developing plans for the the termination of joint operations and link these criteria to the
employment of military transition to stabilization and achievement of the end state.
power within the context Planning also addresses redeployment and demobilization of
of national strategic forces. Joint operation planning is an inherent command
objectives and national responsibility established by law and directive. This fundamental
military strategy to shape responsibility extends from the President and Secretary of Defense
events, meet (SecDef), with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
contingencies, and Staff (CJCS), to the combatant commanders (CCDRs) and their

ix
Executive Summary
respond to unforeseen
crises.
The headquarters,
commands, and agencies
involved in joint operation
planning or committed to
conduct military
operations are collectively
termed the Joint Planning
and Execution
Community.
Planning for joint
operations is continuous
across the full range of
military operations using
two closely related,
integrated, collaborative,
and adaptive processes —
the Joint Operation
Planning and Execution
System (JOPES) and the
joint operation planning
process (JOPP).
x JP 5-0
subordinate joint force commanders (JFCs). The CJCS transmits
the orders of the President and the SecDef to the CCDRs and
oversees the combatant commands’ planning activities. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) function in the planning process as advisers
to the President, National Security Council, and SecDef.
Although not a standing or regularly meeting entity, the Joint
Planning and Execution Community (JPEC) consists of the CJCS
and other members of the JCS, the Joint Staff, the Services and
their major commands, the combatant commands and their
subordinate commands, and the combat support agencies.
The Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES)
and the Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP) share the same
basic approach and problem-solving elements, such as mission
analysis and course of action development. The combination of
JOPES and JOPP promotes coherent planning across all levels
of war and command echelons, whether the requirement is for a
limited, single-phase operation such as noncombatant evacuation
or for a multiphase campaign involving high-intensity combat
operations. JOPES formally integrates the planning activities
of the entire JPEC during the initial planning and plan refinement
that occurs both in peacetime and when faced with an imminent
crisis. While JOPES activities span many organizational levels,
the focus is on the interaction which ultimately helps the
President and SecDef decide when, where, and how to commit
US military capabilities in response to a foreseen contingency
or an unforeseen crisis. JOPP is a less formal but proven
analytical process, which provides a methodical approach to
planning at any organizational level and at any point before and
during joint operations. The focus of JOPP is on the interaction
between an organization’s commander, staff, the commanders
and staffs of the next higher and lower commands, and
supporting commanders and their staffs to develop a joint
operation plan (OPLAN) or operation order (OPORD) for a
specific mission.

Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
JOPES consists of a
multivolume set of
Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff
unclassified and classified
manuals.
Contingency planning is
planning that occurs in
non-crisis situations.
Contingency planning
facilitates the transition to
crisis action planning.
Executive Summary
JOPES Volume I provides the foundation for joint operation
planning. JOPES is used in the development and implementation
of OPLANs and OPORDs prepared in response to requirements
from the President, the SecDef, or the CJCS. It specifies policies,
procedures, and reporting structures — supported by modern
communications and computer systems — for planning the
mobilization, deployment, employment, sustainment,
redeployment, and demobilization of joint forces. It also contains
sample formats for key documents such as the CJCS warning
order, commander’s estimate, and OPORD. JOPES Volume I
provides for orderly and coordinated problem solving and
decisionmaking in two related but distinct categories — contingency
planning and crisis action planning (CAP). These categories differ
primarily in level of uncertainty, available planning time, and products.
A contingency is an anticipated situation that likely would involve
military forces in response to natural and man-made disasters, terrorists,
subversives, military operations by foreign powers, or other situations
as directed by the President or SecDef. The JPEC uses contingency
planning to develop plans for a broad range of contingencies based
on tasks identified in the Contingency Planning Guidance (CPG), Joint
Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP), or other planning directive.
Contingency planning begins when a planning requirement is identified
in the CPG, JSCP, or a planning order, and continues until the
requirement no longer exists. The JSCP links the Joint Strategic Planning
System to joint operation planning, identifies broad scenarios for plan
development, specifies the type of joint OPLAN required, and provides
additional planning guidance as necessary. A CCDR may also initiate
contingency planning by preparing plans not specifically assigned but
considered necessary to discharge command responsibilities.
Within the context of JOPES, a crisis is an incident or situation involving
threat to the United States, its territories, citizens, military forces,
possessions, or vital interests. It typically develops rapidly and creates
a condition of such diplomatic, economic, or military importance that
the President or SecDef considers a commitment of US military forces
and resources to achieve national objectives. It may occur with little
or no warning. It is fast-breaking and requires accelerated
decisionmaking. Sometimes a single crisis may spawn another crisis
elsewhere. JOPES provides additional crisis action procedures for
the time-sensitive development of OPORDs for the likely use of military
forces in response to a crisis. While contingency planning normally is
xi
Executive Summary

conducted in anticipation of future events, CAP is based on

circumstances that exist at the time planning occurs.

Strategic Communication

Strategic communication (SC) is a natural extension of

strategic direction, and supports the President’s strategic
guidance, the SecDef’s National Defense Strategy, and the CJCS’s
Strategic communication National Military Strategy. SC planning and execution focus
is the focused United capabilities that apply information as an instrument of national
States government power to create, strengthen, or preserve an information
processes and efforts to environment favorable to US national interests. SC planning
understand and engage establishes unity of US themes and messages, emphasizes success,
key audiences to create, accurately confirms or refutes external reporting on US operations,
strengthen, or preserve and reinforces the legitimacy of US goals. This is an interagency
conditions favorable to effort, which provides an opportunity to advance US regional
advance national interests and global partnerships. Coordination, approval, and
and objectives through the implementation of a SC strategy and specific information
use of coordinated objectives, audiences, themes, and actions will be developed and
information, themes, synchronized with other US agencies and approved by the SecDef.
plans, programs, and Joint operation planning must include appropriate SC components
actions synchronized with and ensure collaboration with the Department of State’s diplomatic
other instruments of missions. CCDRs consider SC during peacetime security
national power. cooperation planning, and incorporate themes, messages, and
other relevant factors in their security cooperation plans (SCPs).
During contingency planning and CAP, CCDRs review SC
guidance during mission analysis, and their staffs address SC
issues, as appropriate, in their staff estimates. CCDRs can brief
the SecDef on their SC planning during SCP, contingency
planning, and CAP in-progress reviews.

Interagency Planning and Coordination

Integrating the interagency community effectively can be vital to

successful military operations, especially during theater shaping
and during the stability and enable civil authority phases of an
JFC’s should coordinate operation when JFCs may also operate in support of other United
and integrate their States Government agencies. JFCs and their staffs must consider
operations with other how the capabilities of the agencies or other nongovernmental
agencies early in the organizations can be leveraged to assist in accomplishing military
planning process. missions and the broader national strategic objectives. JFCs
should coordinate directly with interagency representatives within
their operational areas during planning to ensure appropriate
agreements exist that support their plans (such as working with
US embassies to secure overflight rights with other nations).

xii JP 5-0

Multinational Planning and Coordination
Multinational operations
is a collective term to
describe military actions
conducted by forces of two
or more nations.
The Joint Operation Planning Process
Joint operation planning
blends two complementary
processes. The first is the
joint operation planning
process; the second
process is operational
design.
Executive Summary
While supported CCDR’s are the focal points for interagency
coordination in support of operations in their areas of
responsibility, interagency coordination with supporting
commanders is just as important. At the operational level,
subordinate commanders should consider and integrate
interagency capabilities into their estimates, plans, and operations.
Joint forces should be prepared for combat and noncombat
operations with forces from other nations within the framework
of an alliance or coalition under US or another nation’s leadership.
Planning for multinational operations is accomplished in
multinational and national channels. Multinational force
commanders develop multinational strategies and plans in
multinational channels. JFCs perform supporting joint operation
planning for multinational operations in US national channels.
Coordination of these separate planning channels occurs at the
national level by established multinational bodies or coalition
member nations and at the theater-strategic and operational levels
by JFCs, who are responsible within both channels for operation
planning matters. US doctrine and procedures for joint operation
planning also are conceptually applicable to multinational
problems. The fundamental issues are much the same for both
situations.
JOPP is an orderly, analytical planning process, which consists
of a set of logical steps to analyze a mission, develop, analyze,
and compare alternative courses of action (COAs), select the best
COA, and produce a plan or order. Operational design is the
use of various design elements in the conception and construction
of the framework that underpins a joint OPLAN and its subsequent
execution. The JFC and staff use operational design elements
throughout JOPP.
Commanders direct throughout planning. This direction takes the
form of interaction with the staff, guidance on the development of
products, and decisions at key points in the process, such as approval
xiii
Executive Summary
The commander is the
focal point of decision-
making and execution
during military
operations.
The role of the staff is to
support the commander in
achieving situational
understanding, making
decisions, disseminating
directives, and following
directives through
execution.
JOPP underpins planning
at all levels and for
missions across the full
range of military
operations.
JOPP consists of a set of
seven steps.
xiv
of a COA. In CAP, this interaction typically is continuous as the JOPP
steps are compressed and blend together. Commanders ensure that
subordinate commands have sufficient time to plan, particularly in a
CAP situation. They do so by issuing warning orders at the earliest
opportunity and by collaborating with other commanders, agency
leaders, and multinational partners as appropriate to ensure a clear
understanding of the commander’s mission, intent, guidance, and
priorities. Commanders resolve command-level issues that are beyond
the staff’s authority.
The staff’s effort during planning focuses on developing
effective plans and orders and helping the commander make
related decisions. The staff does this by integrating situation-
specific information with sound doctrine and technical
competence. The staff’s planning activities initially focus on
mission analysis, which develops information to help the
commander, staff, and subordinate commanders understand the
situation and mission. During COA development and comparison,
the staff provides recommendations to support the commander’s
selection of a COA. Once the commander approves a COA, the
staff coordinates all necessary details and prepares the plan or
order.
JOPP applies to both supported and supporting JFCs and to joint
force component commands when the components participate in
joint planning. This process is designed to facilitate interaction
between the commander, staff, and subordinate headquarters
throughout planning. JOPP helps commanders and their staffs
organize their planning activities, share a common understanding
of the mission and commander’s intent, and develop effective
plans and orders. This planning process applies to contingency
planning and CAP within the context of the responsibilities
specified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual
3122 series (JOPES). JOPP also is used by joint organizations
that have no specific JOPES responsibilities. Furthermore,
JOPP supports planning throughout the course of an operation
after the CJCS, at the direction of the President or SecDef, issues
the execute order. In common application, JOPP proceeds
according to planning milestones and other requirements
established by the commanders at various levels.
JOPP begins with planning initiation, and moves through mission
analysis, COA development, COA analysis and wargaming, COA
comparison, COA approval, and plan or order development.
JP 5-0

Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment
The operational
environment is the
composite of the
conditions, circumstances,
and influences that affect
the employment of
capabilities and bear on
the decisions of the
commander.
A system is a functionally
related group of elements
forming a complex whole.
Using Effects in Planning and Assessment
An effect is a physical
and/or behavioral state of
a system that results from
an action, a set of actions,
or another effect.
Executive Summary
The operational environment encompasses the air, land, sea,
space, and associated adversary, friendly, and neutral systems
(political, military, economic, social, informational, infrastructure,
legal, and others), which are relevant to a specific joint operation.
Understanding this environment has always included a perspective
broader than just the adversary’s military forces and other combat
capabilities within the traditional battlespace. However, current
and future strategic and operational requirements and types of
operations can benefit by a more comprehensive view of all
systems in this environment relevant to the mission and operation
at hand.
A systems understanding of the operational environment considers
more than just an adversary’s military capabilities, order of battle,
and tactics. Instead, it strives to provide a perspective of
interrelated systems that comprise the operational environment,
relevant to a specific joint operation. Among other benefits, this
perspective helps intelligence analysts identify potential sources
from which to gain indications and warning. It also helps analysts
with center of gravity analysis and planners with operational
design by identifying nodes in each system, the links
(relationships) between the nodes, critical factors, and potential
decisive points. This allows commanders and staffs to consider
a broader set of options to focus limited resources, create desired
effects, and achieve objectives.
The use of effects during planning is reflected in the steps of
JOPP. The CCDR plans joint operations based on analysis of
national strategic objectives and development of theater strategic
objectives supported by measurable strategic and operational
desired effects and assessment indicators. At the operational level,
a subordinate JFC develops supporting plans, which can include
objectives supported by measurable operational-level effects and
assessment indicators. Joint operation planning uses
measurable desired effects to relate higher-level objectives
and effects to component missions and tasks. Like end state and
objective, joint doctrine includes effects as an element of operational
design.
xv
Executive Summary

Commanders continuously assess the operational environment

and the progress of operations, and compare them to their initial vision
and intent. The assessment process begins during mission
analysis when the commander and staff consider what to measure
Assessment is a process and how to measure it to determine progress toward accomplishing a
that measures progress of task, creating an effect, or achieving an objective. Commanders adjust
the joint force toward operations based on their assessment to ensure objectives are met
mission accomplishment. and the military end state is achieved. The assessment process is
continuous and directly tied to the commander’s decisions
throughout planning, preparation, and execution of operations. Staffs
help the commander by monitoring the numerous aspects that can
influence the outcome of operations and provide the commander timely
information needed for decisions.

Assessment occurs at all levels and across the entire range of

military operations. Assessment at the operational and strategic
levels typically is broader than at the tactical level (e.g., combat
assessment) and uses measures of effectiveness (MOEs) that
support strategic and operational mission accomplishment.
Strategic- and operational-level assessment efforts concentrate
on broader tasks, effects, objectives, and progress toward the end
state. Continuous assessment helps the JFC and joint force
component commanders determine if the joint force is “doing
the right things” to achieve objectives, not just “doing things right.”
The JFC also can use MOEs to determine progress toward success
in those operations for which tactical-level combat assessment
ways, means, and measures do not apply. Tactical-level
assessment typically uses measures of performance to evaluate
task accomplishment.

Operational Art and Design

Operational art integrates ends, ways, and means across the

levels of war. It is the thought process commanders use to
visualize how best to efficiently and effectively employ military
capabilities to accomplish their mission. Operational art also promotes
unified action by helping JFCs and staffs understand how to facilitate
integration of other agencies and multinational partners toward achieving
the national strategic end state.

In applying operational art, the JFC draws on judgment,

perception, experience, education, intelligence, boldness, and
character to visualize the conditions necessary for success before
committing forces. Operational art requires broad vision, the
ability to anticipate, and the skill to plan, prepare, execute, and

xvi JP 5-0
 Executive Summary

assess. The JFC uses operational art to consider not only the
employment of military forces, but also their sustainment and
Operational art is the the arrangement of their efforts in time, space, and purpose.
application of creative
imagination by While operational art is the manifestation of informed vision and
commanders and staffs — creativity, operational design is the practical extension of the
supported by their skill, creative process. Together they synthesize the intuition and
knowledge, and creativity of the commander with the analytical and logical process
experience — to design of design. The key to operational design essentially involves (1)
strategies, campaigns, and understanding the strategic guidance (determining the end state
major operations and and objectives); (2) identifying the adversary’s principal strengths
organize and employ and weaknesses, and; (3) developing an operational concept that
military forces. will achieve strategic and operational objectives.

Operational design is intrinsic to JOPP. JOPP provides a logical

set of planning steps through which the commander and staff
interact, and operational design supports JOPP by providing a
number of design elements to help the commander and staff
visualize and shape the operation to accomplish the mission.
Operational design is the These elements of operational design comprise a tool that is
conception and particularly helpful during COA determination. Resulting design
construction of the alternatives provide the basis for selecting a COA and developing
framework that underpins the detailed concept of operations.
a joint operation plan and
its subsequent execution. Planning During Execution

As the operation progresses, planning generally occurs in three

distinct but overlapping timeframes: future plans, future
operations, and current operations.

The joint force plans directorate (J-5) focuses on future plans. The
timeframe of focus for this effort varies according to the level of
command, type of operation, JFC’s desires, and other factors. Typically
the emphasis of the future plans effort is on planning the next phase of
operations or sequels to the current operation. In a campaign, this
could be planning the next major operation (the next phase of the
campaign).

Planning also occurs for branches to current operations (future

operations planning). The timeframe of focus for future
operations planning varies according to the factors listed for future
Planning continues plans, but the period typically is more near-term than the future
during execution. plans timeframe. Future planning could occur in the J-5 or joint
planning group, while future operations planning could occur in
the operations directorate (J-3) or joint operations center.

xvii
Executive Summary

Finally, current operations planning addresses the immediate

or very near-term planning issues associated with ongoing
operations. This occurs in the joint operations center or J-3.

CONCLUSION

This publication is the keystone document of the joint planning

series. It provides fundamental principles and doctrine that guide
the Armed Forces of the United States in the planning of joint
operations across the range of military operations.

xviii JP 5-0
 CHAPTER I
JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING

“To a conscientious commander, time is the most vital factor in his planning. By
proper foresight and correct preliminary action, he knows he can conserve the
most precious elements he controls, the lives of his men. So he thinks ahead as
far as he can. He keeps his tactical plan simple. He tries to eliminate as many
variable factors as he is able. He has a firsthand look at as much of the ground
as circumstances render accessible to him. He checks each task in the plan with
the man to whom he intends to assign it. Then — having secured in almost every
instance his subordinates’ wholehearted acceptance of the contemplated mission
and agreement on its feasibility — only then does he issue an order.”

General Mathew B. Ridgway

The Korean War, 1967

SECTION A. JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING — TYPES AND SCOPE

1. Introduction

Planning for the employment of military forces is an inherent responsibility of command.

It is performed at every echelon of command and across the range of military operations. Joint
planning integrates military actions with those of other instruments of national power and our
multinational partners in time, space, and purpose to achieve a specified end state. The military’s
contribution to national strategic planning consists of joint strategic planning with its three
subsets: security cooperation planning, joint operation planning, and force planning. This
publication discusses each type, but focuses predominantly on joint operation planning.

2. Joint Strategic Planning

a. Joint strategic planning provides strategic guidance and direction to the Armed Forces
of the United States for security cooperation planning, joint operation planning, and force planning
(see Figure I-1). Joint strategic planning occurs primarily at the national- and theater-strategic
levels to help the President, Secretary of Defense (SecDef), and other members of the National
Security Council formulate political-military assessments, define political and military objectives
and end states, develop strategic concepts and options, and allocate resources. At the national-
strategic level, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), in consultation with other
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), performs joint strategic planning to:

(1) Advise and assist the President and SecDef regarding the strategic direction of the
Armed Forces of the United States and the preparation of policy guidance.

(2) Advise the SecDef on program recommendations and budget proposals to conform
to priorities established in strategic plans.

(3) Transmit the strategic guidance and direction of the President and SecDef to the
combatant commands, military Services, and combat support agencies.

I-1
Chapter I

JOINT STRATEGIC PLANNING

JOINT
STRATEGIC
PLANNING

SECURITY JOINT
FORCE
COOPERATION OPERATION
PLANNING
PLANNING PLANNING

CONTINGENCY CRISIS ACTION

PLANNING PLANNING

Figure I-1. Joint Strategic Planning

b. The Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS) is the primary means by which the CJCS
performs joint strategic planning. The products of the JSPS, such as the National Military
Strategy (NMS) and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) provide the strategic guidance
and direction for joint strategic planning by the combatant commander (CCDR) and for the
other categories of military planning.

c. CCDRs prepare strategic estimates, strategies, and plans to accomplish their assigned
missions based on strategic guidance and direction from the President, SecDef, and CJCS. CCDRs
develop and modify strategic estimates continuously. They develop strategies that translate
national direction and multinational guidance into concepts to meet strategic objectives. Strategic
plans provide authoritative direction; assign missions, tasks, forces, and resources; designate
assumptions and objectives; establish operational limitations (constraints and restraints), including
rules on the use of force and rules of engagement (ROE); and define policies and concepts to be
integrated into subordinate or supporting plans.

d. Geographic CCDRs (GCCs) focus joint strategic planning on their specific areas of
responsibility (AORs) as defined in the Unified Command Plan (UCP). Functional CCDRs
(FCCs) generally accomplish joint strategic planning with a global focus. Strategic planning for
possible execution of multiple operations across AOR boundaries requires prioritization of effort
by the SecDef or President and coordination with all affected CCDRs. The SecDef may task the
CJCS or an FCC to conduct such planning and assign command relationships as appropriate.

I-2 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

Chapter II, “Strategic Direction,” and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI)
3100.01A, Joint Strategic Planning System, provide information on the JSPS.

3. Security Cooperation Planning

a. Security cooperation is the means by which Department of Defense (DOD) encourages

and enables countries and organizations to work with us to achieve strategic objectives. Security
cooperation consists of a focused program of bilateral and multilateral defense activities conducted
with foreign countries to serve mutual security interests and build defense partnerships. Security
cooperation efforts also should be aligned with and support strategic communication themes,
messages, and actions. The SecDef identifies security cooperation objectives, assesses the
effectiveness of security cooperation activities, and revises goals when required to ensure
continued support for US interests abroad. Although they can shift over time, examples of typical
security cooperation objectives include: creating favorable military regional balances of power;
advancing mutual defense or security arrangements; building allied and friendly military
capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations; and preventing conflict and crisis.

b. DOD’s senior civilian and military leadership — in conjunction with CCDRs, Service
Chiefs, and support agencies — focus their activities on achieving the security cooperation
objectives identified by the SecDef. Security cooperation planning links these activities
with security cooperation objectives by identifying, prioritizing, and integrating them to optimize
their overall contribution to specified US security interests. Security cooperation activities are
grouped into six categories:

(1) Military contacts, including senior official visits, port visits, counterpart visits,
conferences, staff talks, and personnel and unit exchange programs.

(2) Nation assistance, including foreign internal defense, security assistance programs,
and planned humanitarian and civic assistance activities.

(3) Multinational training.

(4) Multinational exercises, including those in support of the Partnership for Peace
Program.

(5) Multinational education for US personnel and personnel from other nations, both
overseas and in the United States.

(6) Arms control and treaty monitoring activities.

c. In response to direction in the DOD Security Cooperation Guidance (SCG), CCDRs, Service
Chiefs, and combat support agencies’ directors prepare security cooperation strategies in accordance
with SCG objectives for CJCS review and SecDef approval, with the GCCs as the supported entities.
These strategies serve as the basis for security cooperation planning. Collaboration among the combatant
commands, Services, and combat support agencies is essential. Equally important is the close coordination

I-3
Chapter I

with US agencies that represent other instruments of national power, and particularly with the US chiefs
of mission (ambassadors) in the GCCs’AORs. The functional combatant commands, Services, and
DOD agencies communicate their intended security cooperation activities to the responsible GCCs,
execute their activities in support of approved security cooperation strategies, and assist in the annual
assessment of the effectiveness of their security cooperation activities.

The DOD Security Cooperation Guidance and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual
(CJCSM) 3113.01A, Responsibilities for the Management of Security Cooperation, prescribe
guidelines and procedures for developing security cooperation strategies and plans. Joint
Publication (JP) 3-08, Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental
Organization Coordination during Joint Operations Volume I, discusses how to facilitate coordination
and cooperation with US Government agencies, and intergovernmental, nongovernmental, and
regional security organizations.

4. Force Planning

a. At the national strategic level, force planning is associated with creating and maintaining
military capabilities. It is primarily the responsibility of the Services and US Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) and is conducted under the administrative control that runs from the
SecDef to the Secretaries of the Military Departments to the Service Chiefs. The Services
recruit, organize, train, equip, and provide forces for assignment to combatant commands and
administer and support these forces. In areas peculiar to special operations, USSOCOM has
similar responsibility for special operations forces (SOF), with the exception of organizing Service
components. Force planning at this level is outside the scope of this publication.

b. At the theater strategic level, force planning encompasses all those activities performed
by the supported CCDR, subordinate component commanders, and support agencies to select,
prepare, integrate, and deploy the forces and capabilities required to accomplish an assigned
mission. Force planning also encompasses those activities performed by force providers to
develop, source, and tailor those forces and capabilities with actual units. Chapter III, “Joint
Operation Planning Process,” describes this aspect of force planning in greater detail.

5. Joint Operation Planning

a. Joint operation planning — the focus of JP 5-0 — is the overarching process that
guides joint force commanders (JFCs) in developing plans for the employment of military power
within the context of national strategic objectives and national military strategy to shape events,
meet contingencies, and respond to unforeseen crises. Planning is triggered when the continuous
monitoring of global events indicates the need to prepare military options. Joint operation planning
is an adaptive, collaborative process that can be iterative and/or parallel to provide actionable
direction to commanders and their staffs across multiple echelons of command.

b. Joint operation planning includes all activities that must be accomplished to plan for an anticipated
operation — the mobilization, deployment, employment, and sustainment of forces. Planners recommend
and commanders approve criteria for the termination of joint operations and link these criteria to the

I-4 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

transition to stabilization and achievement of the end state. Planning also addresses redeployment and
demobilization of forces.

c. Section C of this chapter provides more information on joint operation planning, with
a focus on the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES). Chapter III, “The
Joint Operation Planning Process,” provides details on the joint operation planning process
(JOPP), a less formal but proven analytical process for planning at any organizational level.

6. The Scope of Joint Operation Planning

a. Joint operation planning encompasses the full range of activities required to conduct
joint operations. These activities include the mobilization, deployment, employment, sustainment,
redeployment, and demobilization of forces.

(1) Mobilization. Mobilization is the process by which the Armed Forces or part of
them are brought to a state of readiness for war or other national emergency. Mobilization may
include activating all or part of the Reserve Component. Mobilization is primarily the
responsibility of the Military Departments and Services in close cooperation with the supported
commanders and their Service component commanders.

JP 4-05, Joint Mobilization Planning, discusses joint mobilization planning in greater detail.

(2) Deployment. Deployment encompasses the movement of forces and their

sustainment resources from their original locations to a specific destination to conduct joint
operations. It specifically includes movement of forces and their requisite sustaining resources
within the United States, within theaters, and between theaters. Deployment is primarily the
responsibility of the supported commanders and their Service component commanders, in close
cooperation with the supporting CCDRs and US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM).

JP 3-35, Joint Deployment and Redeployment Operations, discusses joint deployment planning
in greater detail.

(3) Employment. Employment encompasses the use of military forces and capabilities
within an operational area (OA). Employment planning provides the foundation for, determines
the scope of, and is limited by mobilization, deployment, and sustainment planning. Employment
is primarily the responsibility of the supported CCDRs and their subordinate and supporting
commanders.

JP 3-0, Joint Operations, this publication, and numerous other publications in the joint doctrine
system discuss joint employment planning in greater detail.

(4) Sustainment. Sustainment is the provision of logistics and personnel services required
to maintain and prolong operations until successful mission accomplishment. The focus of sustainment in
joint operations is to provide the JFC with the means to enable freedom of action and endurance and
extend operational reach. Effective sustainment determines the depth to which the joint force can

I-5
Chapter I

conduct decisive operations; allowing the JFC to seize, retain and exploit the initiative. Sustainment is
primarily the responsibility of the supported CCDRs and their Service component commanders in close
cooperation with the Services, combat support agencies, and supporting commands.

JP 4-0, Joint Logistic Support, JP 1-0, Personnel Support to Joint Operations, and other joint
logistic doctrine publications discuss joint sustainment planning in greater detail.

(5) Redeployment. Redeployment encompasses the movement of units, individuals,

or supplies deployed in one area to another area, or to another location within the area for the
purpose of further employment. Redeployment also includes the return of forces and resources
to their original location and status. Redeployment is primarily the responsibility of supported
commanders and their Service component commanders, in close cooperation with the supporting
CCDRs and USTRANSCOM.

JP 3-35, Joint Deployment and Redeployment Operations, discusses joint redeployment planning
in greater detail.

(6) Demobilization. Demobilization is the process of transitioning a conflict or wartime

military establishment and defense-based civilian economy to a peacetime configuration while
maintaining national security and economic vitality. It includes the return of Reserve Component
units, individuals, and materiel stocks to their former status. Demobilization is primarily the
responsibility of the Military Departments and Services, in close cooperation with the supported
commanders and their Service component commanders.

JP 4-05, Joint Mobilization Planning, discusses demobilization planning in greater detail.

SECTION B. ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

7. General

a. Joint operation planning is an inherent command responsibility established by law and

directive. This fundamental responsibility extends from the President and SecDef, with the
advice of the CJCS, to the CCDRs and their subordinate components and JFCs. Joint force
Service and functional components conduct component planning that could involve planning
for the employment of other components’ capabilities, such as when the joint force air component
commander plans for the employment of all air assets made available. The CJCS transmits the
orders of the President and the SecDef to the CCDRs and oversees the combatant commands’
planning activities. The JCS function in the planning process as advisers to the President, National
Security Council (NSC), and SecDef.

b. The CJCS, CCDRs, and subordinate JFCs have primary responsibility for planning the
employment of joint forces. Although not responsible for directing the combatant commands’
Service forces in joint operations, the Military Departments participate in joint operation planning
through execution of their responsibilities to: organize, train, equip, and provide forces for assignment to

I-6 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

the combatant commands; administer and support those forces; and prepare plans implementing joint
strategic mobility, logistic, and mobilization plans.

8. Joint Planning and Execution Community

a. The headquarters, commands, and agencies involved in joint operation planning or

committed to conduct military operations are collectively termed the Joint Planning and
Execution Community (JPEC). Although not a standing or regularly meeting entity, the JPEC
consists of the CJCS and other members of the JCS, the Joint Staff, the Services and their major
commands, the combatant commands and their subordinate commands, and the combat support
agencies (see Figure I-2).

THE JOINT PLANNING AND EXECUTION COMMUNITY

Strategic
Guidance

Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUPPORTED COMBATANT COMMAND
SUBORDINATE MILITARY
COMMANDS SERVICES
Subordinate Unified Service Major Commands
Commands
Service and Functional Supporting
Components Combatant Commands

Joint Task Forces Combat Support Agencies

JOINT OPERATION PLANNING AND EXECUTION SYSTEM

Figure I-2. The Joint Planning and Execution Community

b. In the planning process, the President and SecDef issue policy, strategic guidance, and direction.
The President, assisted by the NSC, also issues policy and strategic direction to guide the planning
efforts of Federal agencies that represent other instruments of national power. The SecDef, with the
advice and assistance of the CJCS, organizes the JPEC for joint operation planning by
establishing supported and supporting command relationships among the combatant
commands. A supported commander is identified for each planning task, and supporting CCDRs,
Services, and combat support agencies are designated as appropriate. Similarly, supported commanders

I-7
Chapter I

establish supported and supporting command relationships among their subordinate commanders. This
process provides for unity of command in the planning and execution of joint operations and facilitates
unity of effort within the JPEC.

(1) The supported commander has primary responsibility for all aspects of a task
assigned by the JSCP, the Contingency Planning Guidance (CPG), or other joint operation planning
authority. In the context of joint operation planning, the supported commander prepares operation
plans (OPLANs) or operation orders (OPORDs) in response to requirements generated by the
President or the SecDef.

(2) Supporting commanders provide forces, assistance, or other resources to a

supported commander in accordance with the principles set forth in JP 0-2, Unified Action Armed
Forces (UNAAF). Supporting commanders prepare supporting plans as required. Under some
circumstances, a commander may be a supporting commander for one operation while being a
supported commander for another.

See CJCSI 3141.01C, Responsibilities for the Management and Review of Contingency Plans,
for a more complete discussion of the JPEC. See JP 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF),
and JP 3-0, Joint Operations, for a more complete discussion of supported and supporting
relationships.

9. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

a. The CJCS, as the principal military adviser to the President, SecDef, and rest of the
NSC, is assigned specific responsibilities in the areas of joint strategic planning and joint operation
planning. In carrying out these responsibilities, the CJCS consults with and seeks the advice of
other members of the JCS and CCDRs.

b. Subject to the direction, authority, and control of the President, the guidance of the
SecDef, and pursuant to Title 10, US Code, the CJCS is responsible for:

(1) Preparing military strategy and assessments of the associated risk.

(2) Assisting the President and the SecDef in providing for the strategic direction of
the Armed Forces of the United States, including the direction of operations conducted by the
CCDRs.

(3) Preparing strategic plans and supporting plans for joint intelligence, logistic, and
mobility. Recommending the assignment of logistic responsibilities in accordance with those
plans and determining logistic support available to execute the CCDR’s OPLANs.

(4) Providing for the preparation and review of military mobilization plans, security
cooperation plans, and joint operation plans.

I-8 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

(5) Advising the SecDef on the critical deficiencies and strengths in force capabilities (including
manpower, logistic, and mobility support) identified during the preparation and review of OPLANs and
assessing the impact of such deficiencies and strengths on meeting national security objectives and
policies.

(6) Reviewing the CCDRs’ plans and programs to determine their adequacy, feasibility,
acceptability, completeness, and compliance with joint doctrine.

(7) Integrating interagency and multinational partners into planning efforts as

appropriate.

(8) Issuing the execute order.

CJCSI 3141.01C, Responsibilities for the Management and Review of Contingency Plans,
discusses the joint planning and execution community in greater detail.

10. Combatant Commanders

a. CCDRs plan at the national and theater strategic levels of war through participation
in the development of NMS, and the development of theater estimates, strategies, and plans.
The supported CCDR normally participates in strategic discussions with the President, SecDef,
and CJCS, and with multinational partners. The supported CCDR’s strategy links US national
strategy to operational-level activities. The CCDR’s planning efforts guide joint operation
planning at the operational level, which links the operational and tactical employment of
forces to strategic objectives. The focus at this level is on operational art — the employment of
military forces to attain strategic objectives through the design, organization, integration, and
conduct of strategies, campaigns, major operations, and battles.

b. CCDRs develop OPLANs for possible contingencies across the range of military
operations. When crises arise, or when otherwise directed, CCDRs expand, refine, and adapt
existing plans or develop new plans as the basis for OPORDs. When military operations are
directed, CCDRs deploy and employ forces and other capabilities to accomplish assigned missions.
Their joint operation planning responsibilities are described in the UCP, JSCP, CPG, SCG, and
JP 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF). Other planning activities of the CCDRs include:

(1) Conducting strategic estimates, identifying required resources, and identifying,

assessing, and managing risks.

(2) Assisting the CJCS in developing national military strategy and formulating theater
and security cooperation strategies in conformance with national strategic plans.

(3) Identifying and planning for contingencies not specifically assigned by the President,
SecDef, or CJCS.

I-9
Chapter I

(4) Preparing and executing joint OPORDs.

(5) Advising the CJCS and SecDef of other agencies’ capabilities desired or required
for OPLAN execution.

c. Functional combatant commands participate in joint operation planning typically as a

supporting command to a supported geographic combatant command. USTRANSCOM and its
component commands plan and execute the transportation aspects of global mobility operations
and provide centralized traffic management while providing deployable forces to support
intertheater and intratheater mobility and in-transit visibility. USTRANSCOM is the joint force
provider for mobility forces, and recommends sourcing of mobility forces to geographic combatant
commands. It also is the distribution process owner, and synchronizes and integrates distribution-
related activities of all force and material providers. US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) is
the primary joint force provider, joint force trainer, and joint deployment process owner. From
assigned forces, USJFCOM provides ready joint forces and capabilities, and recommends global
joint sourcing solutions for forces and capabilities worldwide, less designated forces sourced by
USSOCOM, US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and USTRANSCOM. USJFCOM,
USSTRATCOM, and USSOCOM provide assigned functional forces based in the continental
United States (CONUS).

d. For joint operation planning, USJFCOM and USSOCOM make recommendations to

the Joint Staff regarding the apportionment and allocation of forces and resources. As the DOD
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) manager (although not assigned ISR forces),
USSTRATCOM will make ISR force allocation recommendations to the Joint Staff. During
execution, the Services, USJFCOM, and USSOCOM will identify the specific units and support
to be allocated to source the CCDRs OPLANs. The Services maintain Reserve Component
forces for the expansion of Service capabilities and capacity in times of heightened military
need, and prepare detailed mobilization, sustainment, and mobility plans containing the
identification of the actual forces and support allocated.

11. Subordinate Joint Forces

The commanders of subordinate joint forces perform joint operation planning functions
similar to those of the CCDRs for their assigned missions or OAs. They accomplish these
functions under the direction of the establishing authority. Their Service component commands
conduct joint operation planning both within the chain of command that runs from the President
through the SecDef to CCDRs and under the administrative control of the Military Departments.

12. Combat Support Agencies

Combat support agencies are DOD agencies, such as the Defense Logistics Agency, so
designated in law or by the SecDef. They are supporting agencies in the same manner as supporting
combatant commands. Supported commanders may assign missions and tasks to them consistent
with their assigned functions in OPLANs and OPORDs. The intelligence community falls

I-10 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

generally in this category, although there are specific channels for requests and requirements for intelligence
support depending on the type of intelligence required.

SECTION C. JOINT OPERATION PLANNING

13. General

a. Joint operation planning is an adaptive process. It occurs in a networked, collaborative

environment, which requires dialogue among senior leaders, concurrent and parallel plan
development, and collaboration across multiple planning levels. Clear strategic guidance and
frequent interaction between senior leaders and planners promote early understanding of, and
agreement on, planning assumptions, considerations, risks, and other key factors. The focus is
on developing plans that contain a variety of viable, embedded options for the President and
SecDef to consider as the situation develops. This facilitates responsive plan development and
modification, resulting in constantly up-to-date plans. Joint operation planning process also
promotes greater involvement with other US agencies and our multinational partners.

KEY TERM

joint operation planning -- Planning activities associated with the preparation

of joint operation plans and operation orders for the conduct of military
operations by joint force commanders.

b. Planning for joint operations is continuous across the range of military operations using
the closely related, integrated, collaborative, and adaptive JOPES and JOPP. JOPES and JOPP
share the same basic approach and problem-solving elements, such as mission analysis and
course of action (COA) development. The combination of JOPES and JOPP promotes
coherent planning across all levels of war and command echelons, whether the requirement
is for a limited, single-phase operation such as noncombatant evacuation or for a multiphase
campaign involving high-intensity combat operations. See Chapter IV, “Operational Art and
Design,” for more discussion on campaigns.

c. JOPES formally integrates the planning activities of the entire JPEC during the initial
planning and plan refinement that occurs both in peacetime and when faced with an imminent
crisis. While JOPES activities span many organizational levels, the focus is on the interaction
which ultimately helps the President and SecDef decide when, where, and how to commit
US military capabilities in response to a foreseen contingency or an unforeseen crisis. The
majority of JOPES activities and products occur prior to the point when the CJCS approves and
issues the execute order, which initiates the employment of military capabilities to accomplish a
specific mission.

d. JOPP is a less formal but proven analytical process, which provides a methodical approach to
planning at any organizational level and at any point before and during joint operations. The focus of
JOPP is on the interaction between an organization’s commander, staff, the commanders and
staffs of the next higher and lower commands, and supporting commanders and their staffs.

I-11
Chapter I

Although the ultimate product is an OPLAN or OPORD for a specific mission, the process is continuous
throughout an operation. Even during execution, it produces plans and orders for future operations as
well as fragmentary orders (FRAGORDs) that drive immediate adjustments to the current operation.
JOPP provides an orderly framework for planning in general, particularly for organizations that have no
formal JOPES requirements. See Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,” for
more information on JOPP.

e. The JOPP supports the systematic, on-demand, creation and revision of executable plans,
with up-to-date options, as circumstances require. A premium is placed on flexibility. The
incorporation of collaboration capabilities, relational databases, and decision-support tools
promotes planning with real-time access to relevant information and the ability to link planners
and selected subject matter experts regardless of their location. The goal is shortened planning
timelines and current, high-fidelity, up-to-date plans.

f. Joint operation planning has the inherent flexibility to adjust to changing requirements
for adaptive plans, developed collaboratively and shaped by frequent interaction among key
senior leaders. JP 5-0 and JOPES (see paragraph 14) incorporate initiatives to make the planning
process more adaptive to an ever-changing world environment. These initiatives — such as
levels of planning detail, the requirement for more frequent in-progress reviews between CCDRs
and the SecDef, and the use of collaboration technology — provide more and better options
during plan development, increase opportunities for consultation and guidance during the planning
process, and promote increased agility in plan implementation.

g. Joint operation planning produces a number of products in various levels of detail.

Paragraph 14e “Contingency Planning” of this chapter provides information on levels of detail,
while paragraph 16 “Types of Joint Operation Plans and Orders” describes planning products.
JP 5-0 focuses on the joint OPLAN and the process to develop it. A joint OPLAN is the most
detailed of the planning products, and provides a complete concept of operations (CONOPS),
all annexes applicable to the plan, and the time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD) for
the specific operation. Joint operation planning also converts these plans into OPORDs ready
for execution when required.

14. Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Overview

a. JOPES consists of a multivolume set of CJCS unclassified and classified manuals. Three
primary unclassified sources for JOPES information are:

(1) CJCSM 3122.01A, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES)
Volume I (Planning Policies and Procedures), hereafter referred to as “JOPES Volume I.”

(2) CJCSM 3122.02C, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES)
Volume III (Crisis Action Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data Development and Deployment
Execution), hereafter referred to as “JOPES Volume III.”

I-12 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

(3) CJCSM 3122.03B, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES)
Volume II (Planning Formats), hereafter referred to as “JOPES Volume II.”

b. JOPES Volume I provides the foundation for joint operation planning. JOPES is used in
the development and implementation of OPLANs and OPORDs prepared in response to
requirements from the President, the SecDef, or the CJCS. It specifies policies, procedures, and
reporting structures — supported by modern communications and computer systems — for
planning the mobilization, deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment, and
demobilization of joint forces. It also contains sample formats for key documents such as the
CJCS warning order (WARNORD), commander’s estimate, and OPORD. JOPES Volume II
provides planning formats and additional guidance, while JOPES Volume III provides crisis
action TPFDD development information. JOPES applies to joint operations across the range
of military operations and to all JPEC members.

c. JOPES Volume I provides for orderly and coordinated problem solving and decision-
making in two related but distinct categories — contingency planning and crisis action planning
(CAP). These categories differ primarily in level of uncertainty, amount of available planning
time, and products. First, the process is highly structured to support iterative, concurrent, and
parallel contingency planning throughout the planning community to produce thorough and
fully coordinated OPLANs when time permits. Second, the process is shortened in CAP, as
necessary, to support the dynamic requirements of changing events. During actual military
operations, the process adapts to accommodate greater decentralization of joint operation planning
activities. Contingency planning and CAP share common planning activities and are
interrelated.

d. Joint operation planning encompasses a number of elements, including three broad

operational activities, four planning functions, and a number of related products (see Figure
I-3).

(1) Situational Awareness

(a) This operational activity addresses procedures for describing the strategic
environment, including threats to national security. This occurs while continuously monitoring
the national and international political and military situations so that emerging crises can be
determined and analyzed, decision makers notified, and the specific nature of the threat determined.
This activity emphasizes timely, relevant, and accurate information concerning the status of
enemy, friendly, and neutral forces (such as enemy capabilities and intentions), and resources.
All organizational levels are supported by this activity during contingency and crisis action
planning and execution.

(b) Situational awareness encompasses two activities: situation development and

situation assessment. During situation development, an event with possible national security
implications occurs, is recognized, and is reported. Through continual situation assessment of
political, military, economic, social, infrastructure, information, and other factors, those events
affecting national security are identified and reported to the National Military Command Center

I-13
Chapter I

Joint Operation Planning Activities, Functions, and Products

Situational Awareness
Operational Planning
Activities Execution

Plan Assessment
Planning Strategic Concept Plan
(Refine, Adapt, Terminate,
Functions Guidance Development Development
Execute)
Month Review
Six Month Review Cycle

{
IPR IPR IPR
BaseBase
Plan Plan
(BPLAN)
Approved
Approved Approved
Approved Approved
Approved Concept
Concept Plan
Plan (CONPLAN)
Mission Concept
Concept Plan
Operation
Operation PlanPlan
(OPLAN)

Products
Products Execute
Order
Warning Planning Operation Alert
Order Order
Order Order
Order Order
Deployment
Deployment
Order
in-progress review
IPR in-progress review

Figure I-3. Joint Operation Planning Activities, Functions, and Products

(NMCC). The JFC considers possible requirements for military force and initiates reviews of plans
within the context of current strategic guidance.

(c) Situational awareness actions support both contingency and crisis action
planning. Situational awareness encompasses five related activities — (1) monitoring the global
situation; (2) identifying that an event has occurred; (3) recognizing that the event is a problem
or a potential problem; (4) reporting the event; and (5) assessing the event. An event is a national
or international occurrence assessed as unusual and viewed as potentially having an adverse
impact on US national interests and national security. The recognition of the event as a problem
or potential problem follows from the observation.

(2) Planning

(a) Planning translates strategic guidance and direction into executable OPLANs
and OPORDs for contingency or crisis action response. Joint operation planning may be based
on defined tasks identified in the CPG and the JSCP. Alternatively, joint operation planning may
be based on the need for a military response to a current event, emergency, or time-sensitive
contingency. Contingency planning is normally initiated by a CPG, JSCP, or a planning directive
tasking. It is based on assigned planning guidance, derived assumptions, and apportioned forces
and combat support activities. CAP is initiated to respond to a current event, emergency, or

I-14 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

time-sensitive contingency. It is based on planning guidance, actual circumstances, and assigned and
allocated forces and combat support activities. In both cases, planning is initiated from a continuous
awareness of global events, recognition of the need for a prepared military response to support the
National Security Strategy (NSS), and follows a collaborative, iterative planning process.

(b) Planning Functions:

1. Strategic Guidance. This function is used to formulate politico-military

assessments at the strategic level; develop and evaluate military strategy and objectives; apportion
and allocate forces and other resources; formulate concepts and strategic military options; and
develop planning guidance leading to the preparation of COAs. The President, SecDef, and
CJCS — with appropriate consultation with additional NSC members, other US government (USG)
agencies, and multinational partners — formulate suitable and feasible national strategic objectives that
reflect US national interests. The CCDR may provide input through one or more commander’s
assessments. The CCDR crafts military objectives that support national strategic objectives with the
advice and consent of the CJCS and SecDef. This process begins with an analysis of existing strategic
guidance such as the JSCP and CPG for contingency planning or a CJCS WARNORD, planning order
(PLANORD), or alert order (ALERTORD) in CAP. It includes mission analysis, threat assessment,
and development of assumptions, which as a minimum will be briefed to the SecDef during the mission
analysis in-progress review (IPR). During this initial IPR, the CCDR should consider discussing USG
strategic communication guidance. The primary end product of the strategic guidance function is
the supported commander’s mission statement.

2. Concept Development. In concept development during contingency planning,

the supported commander develops a CONOPS for SecDef approval based on SecDef and CJCS
planning guidance and resource apportionment provided in Global Force Management (GFM) guidance
and Service documents. GFM aligns force apportionment, assignment, and allocation methodologies in
support of the national defense strategy (NDS) and joint force availability requirements. In CAP, the
supported commander develops, analyzes, and compares alternative COAs based on planning guidance,
resource allocations from previously approved OPLANs, and a CJCS WARNORD. In time-sensitive
situations, a WARNORD may not be issued and a PLANORD or ALERTORD might be the first
strategic guidance received by the supported commander. Using the strategic guidance and the CCDR’s
mission statement, planners prepare evaluation request messages to solicit COA input from subordinate
units and develop preliminary COAs based upon staff estimates. The supported commander recommends
a COA in the commander’s estimate for SecDef approval. The commander also requests the SecDef’s
guidance on interagency coordination and makes appropriate recommendations. As a basis for this
discussion, the commander could brief the highlights of the OPLAN’s annex V, (“Interagency
Coordination),” during one or more of the IPRs. Concept development should consider a range of
options to provide greater flexibility and speed transition during a crisis. The concept development IPR
should address to the SecDef the CCDR’s estimate, which broadly outlines how forces will conduct
integrated joint operations to accomplish the mission. Products from concept development include
an approved COA and commander’s estimate containing termination criteria, supportability
estimates, and (if time allows) an integrated TPFDD of estimated force and logistic requirements
by operation phase. If developed, the TPFDD must ensure forces and mission visibility by phase to
accommodate effective force integration and enable rapid adaptation as the situation changes.

I-15
Chapter I

3. Plan Development. This function is used to fully develop an OPLAN,

operation plan in concept format (CONPLAN), or an OPORD with applicable supporting annexes
and to refine preliminary feasibility analysis. This function fully integrates mobilization,
deployment, employment, sustainment, conflict termination, redeployment, and demobilization
activities through the six-phase construct. Detailed planning begins with the SecDef’s approval
for further planning in a non-crisis environment or when the CJCS issues a WARNORD in a
CAP situation. The primary product is an approved plan or order.

4. Plan Assessment (Refine, Adapt, Terminate, Execute). During this

function, the supported commander refines the complete plan while supporting and subordinate
commanders, Services, and supporting agencies complete their plans for review and approval.
In general, the supported commander will, when required, submit the plans for the SecDef’s
approval. All commanders continue to develop and analyze branches and sequels as required.
The supported commander and the Joint Staff continue to evaluate the situation for any changes
that would trigger plan refinement, adaptation, termination, or execution. The CCDR will brief
the SecDef during the plan assessment IPR of any identified requirements to adapt, terminate, or
execute an OPLAN.

(3) Execution. Execution starts when the execute order (EXORD) is issued. This
component is comprised of mobilization, deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment,
rotation, and demobilization activities. Protection and operations security are critical throughout.
Deployment encompasses all force preparation and movement to support an operation and all
redeployment operations. Thoroughly planned, verified and fully documented TPFDD is the
basis for force mobility and visibility. Effective command and control (C2) of deployment
through the validation process ensures units are prepared and enables adaptability to unforeseen
operational events. Those units requiring transportation support must provide planning (movement
requirement) information to the supporting command as early as possible and must comply with
transportation directives to ensure in-transit visibility and C2 of their movements, to include
joint reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (JRSOI). Sustainment is the provision
of personnel, logistic, and other support required to maintain and prolong operations or combat
until successful accomplishment or revision of the mission or of the national objective.
Employment incorporates all activities required to complete the assigned mission. It spans the
phases of the operation. Situation awareness and planning continue throughout employment.
Phase transition criteria and operation assessment processes support situation awareness and
enable rapid transition to branches or sequels. Employment continues until the mission is
accomplished or as otherwise directed by the SecDef or President. The ability to monitor and
compare actual with scheduled events is crucial to assessing mission accomplishment, terminating
operations, and conducting redeployment.

e. Contingency Planning

I-16 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

(1) Contingency planning is planning that occurs in non-crisis situations. A contingency

is a situation that likely would involve military forces in response to natural and man-made disasters,
terrorists, subversives, military operations by foreign powers, or other situations as directed by the
President or SecDef. The JPEC uses contingency planning to develop plans for a broad range of
contingencies based on tasks identified in the CPG, JSCP, or other planning directive. Contingency
planning facilitates the transition to CAP.

(2) Plans are derived from the best available information, using forces and resources
apportioned and allocated per GFM guidance. Contingency planning encompasses the activities
associated with the development of OPLANs for the deployment, employment, and sustainment
of apportioned forces and resources in response to a hypothetical situation identified in joint
strategic planning documents. This category of planning relies heavily on assumptions regarding
the circumstances that will exist when a crisis arises. The transition from contingency planning
to CAP and execution should be as seamless as possible. To ensure this, planners must develop
fully documented concepts of operation which detail the assumptions, enemy forces, operation
phases, prioritized missions and force positioning. Detailed, war-gamed, refined, and fully
documented contingency planning supports sound force acquisition and training in preparation
for the most likely operational requirements. It also enables rapid comparison of the hypothetical
conditions, operation phases, missions and forces of the OPLAN to the actual requirements of
CAP. Work performed during contingency planning allows the JPEC to develop the processes
and procedures, as well as the analytical and planning expertise that are critically needed during
CAP.

(3) Contingency planning begins when a planning requirement is identified in the

CPG, JSCP, or a planning order, and continues until the requirement no longer exists. The JSCP
links the JSPS to joint operation planning, identifies broad scenarios for plan development,
specifies the type of joint OPLAN required, and provides additional planning guidance as
necessary. A CCDR may also initiate contingency planning by preparing plans not specifically
assigned but considered necessary to discharge command responsibilities. If a situation develops
during a contingency planning cycle that warrants contingency planning but was not anticipated
in the CPG/JSCP, the SecDef, through the CJCS, tasks the appropriate supported CCDR and
applicable supporting CCDRs, Services, and combat support agencies out-of-cycle to begin
contingency planning in response to the new situation. The primary mechanism for tasking
contingency planning outside of the CPG/JSCP cycle will be through strategic guidance statements
from the SecDef and endorsed by message from the CJCS to the CCDRs.

(4) Plans are produced and adapted periodically to ensure relevancy. Contingency planning
most often addresses military options requiring combat operations; however, plans must account for
other types of joint operations across the range of military operations. For example, operations during
phase IV (Stabilize) of a campaign or operation and most stability operations are very complex and
require extensive planning and coordination with non-DOD organizations, with the military in support of
other agencies. Contingency planning occurs in prescribed cycles in accordance with formally established
procedures that complement and support other DOD planning cycles. In coordination with the JPEC,
the Joint Staff develops and issues a planning schedule that coordinates plan development activities and

I-17
Chapter I

establishes submission dates for joint OPLANs. The CJCS can also direct out-of-cycle contingency
planning when circumstances warrant disruption of the normal planning cycle.

(5) Contingency planning encompasses four levels of planning detail, with an

associated planning product for each level.

(a) Level 1 Planning Detail — Commander’s Estimate. This level of planning

involves the least amount of detail, and focuses on producing a developed COA. The product
for this level can be a COA briefing, command directive, commander’s estimate, or a
memorandum. The commander’s estimate provides the SecDef with military COAs to meet a
potential contingency. The estimate reflects the supported commander’s analysis of the various
COAs available to accomplish an assigned mission and contains a recommended COA.

(b) Level 2 Planning Detail — Base Plan. A base plan describes the CONOPS,
major forces, concepts of support, and anticipated timelines for completing the mission. It
normally does not include annexes or a TPFDD.

(c) Level 3 Planning Detail — CONPLAN. A CONPLAN is an operation plan

in an abbreviated format that may require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into
an OPLAN or OPORD. It includes a base plan with annexes required by the JFC and a supported
commander’s estimate of the plan’s feasibility. It may also produce a TPFDD if applicable.

(d) Level 4 Planning Detail — OPLAN. An OPLAN is a complete and detailed

joint plan containing a full description of the CONOPS, all annexes applicable to the plan, and a
TPFDD. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute
the plan and provide closure estimates for their flow into the theater. OPLANs can be quickly
developed into an OPORD. An OPLAN is normally prepared when:

1. The contingency is critical to national security and requires detailed prior planning.

2. The magnitude or timing of the contingency requires detailed planning.

3. Detailed planning is required to support multinational planning.

4. The feasibility of the plan’s CONOPS cannot be determined without

detailed planning.

5. Detailed planning is necessary to determine force deployment,

employment, and sustainment requirements, determine available resources to fill identified
requirements, and validate shortfalls.

(6) Contingency planning is a collaborative process that engages the SecDef, CJCS, JCS,
CCDRs, and staffs of the entire JPEC in the development of relevant plans for all contingencies identified
in the CPG, JSCP, and other planning directives. Contingency planning also includes JPEC concurrent,
collaborative, and parallel joint planning activities. The JPEC review those plans tasked in the JSCP for

I-18 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

SecDef approval. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy also reviews those plans for policy
considerations in parallel with their approval by the CJCS. A CCDR can request a JPEC review for any
tasked or un-tasked plans that pertain to the AOR. In addition, the CCDR can request a JPEC review
during any planning function in the process, including plan assessment. CCDRs may direct the development
of additional plans by their commands to accomplish assigned or implied missions.

(7) When directed by the President or SecDef through the CJCS, CCDRs may convert
Level 1, 2, and 3 plans into Level 4 OPLANs or into fully developed OPORDs for execution.
Combatant commands continue contingency planning even when engaged in actual contingency
operations. Additionally, many contingency planning resources often are required for CAP, and
some contingency planning may be interrupted or delayed until the contingency is stabilized or
resolved.

(8) JOPES Volume I provides details for COA development and selection as well as
for plan review and approval during contingency planning. Details include process information
for interaction between the supported commander, the SecDef, and the President and formats
for various planning products.

CJCSI 3141.01C, Responsibilities for the Management and Review of Contingency Plans, governs
the formal review and approval process for CONOPS and OPLANs.

f. Crisis Action Planning

(1) A crisis is an incident or situation involving a threat to the United States, its
territories, citizens, military forces, possessions, or vital interests. It typically develops rapidly
and creates a condition of such diplomatic, economic, or military importance that the President or
SecDef considers a commitment of US military forces and resources to achieve national objectives. It
may occur with little or no warning. It is fast-breaking and requires accelerated decisionmaking.
Sometimes a single crisis may spawn another crisis elsewhere. JOPES provides additional CAP
procedures for the time-sensitive development of OPORDs for the likely use of military forces in response
to a crisis.

(2) CAP encompasses the activities associated with the time-sensitive development
of OPORDs for the deployment, employment, and sustainment of assigned, attached, and allocated
forces and resources in response to an actual situation that may result in actual military operations.
While contingency planning normally is conducted in anticipation of future events, CAP is
based on circumstances that exist at the time planning occurs. There are always situations
arising in the present that might require US military response. Such situations may approximate
those previously planned for in contingency planning, though it is unlikely they would be identical,
and sometimes they will be completely unanticipated. The time available to plan responses to
such real-time events is short. In as little as a few days, commanders and staffs must develop
and approve a feasible COA, publish the plan or order, prepare forces, ensure sufficient
communications systems support, and arrange sustainment for the employment of US military forces.

I-19
Chapter I

(3) In a crisis, situational awareness is continuously fed by the latest intelligence and operations
reports. An adequate and feasible military response in a crisis demands flexible procedures that consider
time available, rapid and effective communications, and relevant previous planning products whenever
possible.

(4) In a crisis or time-sensitive situation, the CCDR uses CAP to adjust previously
prepared OPLANs. The CCDR converts these plans to executable OPORDs or develops
OPORDs from scratch when no useful OPLAN exists.

(5) CAP activities are similar to contingency planning activities, but CAP is based on
dynamic, real-world conditions vice static assumptions. CAP procedures provide for the rapid
and effective exchange of information and analysis, the timely preparation of military COAs for
consideration by the President or SecDef, and the prompt transmission of their decisions to the
JPEC. CAP activities may be performed sequentially or in parallel, with supporting and
subordinate plans or OPORDs being developed concurrently. The exact flow of the procedures
is largely determined by the time available to complete the planning and by the significance of
the crisis. Capabilities such as collaboration and decision-support tools will increase the ability
of the planning process to adapt quickly to changing situations and improve the transition from
contingency planning to CAP. The following paragraphs summarize the activities and interaction
that occur during CAP. Refer to JOPES Volume I for detailed procedures.

(a) When the President, SecDef, or CJCS decides to develop military options, the
CJCS issues a planning directive to the JPEC initiating the development of COAs and requesting
that the supported commander submit a commander’s estimate of the situation with a
recommended COA to resolve the situation. Normally, the directive will be a WARNORD, but
a PLANORD or ALERTORD may be used if the nature and timing of the crisis warrant accelerated
planning. In a quickly evolving crisis, the initial WARNORD may be communicated vocally
with a follow-on record copy to ensure that the JPEC is kept informed. If the directive contains
force deployment preparation or deployment orders, SecDef approval is required.

(b) The WARNORD describes the situation, establishes command relationships,

and identifies the mission and any planning constraints. It may identify forces and strategic
mobility resources, or it may request that the supported commander develop these factors. It
may establish tentative dates and times to commence mobilization, deployment or employment,
or it may solicit the recommendations of the supported commander regarding these dates and
times. If the President, SecDef, or CJCS directs development of a specific COA, the WARNORD
will describe the COA and request the supported commander’s assessment. A WARNORD
sample is in JOPES Volume I.

(c) In response to the WARNORD, the supported commander, in collaboration with

subordinate and supporting commanders and the rest of the JPEC, reviews existing joint OPLANs for
applicability and develops, analyzes, and compares COAs. Based on the supported commander’s
guidance, supporting commanders begin their planning activities.

I-20 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

(d) Although an existing plan almost never completely aligns with an emerging crisis, it
can be used to facilitate rapid COA development. An existing OPLAN can be modified to fit the
specific situation. An existing CONPLAN can be fully developed beyond the stage of an approved
CONOPS. TPFDDs related to specific OPLANs are stored in the JOPES database and available to
the JPEC for review.

(e) The CJCS, in consultation with other members of the JCS and CCDRs, reviews
and evaluates the supported commander’s estimate and provides recommendations and advice
to the President and SecDef for COA selection. The supported commander’s COAs may be
refined or revised, or new COAs may have to be developed to accommodate a changing situation.
The President or SecDef selects a COA and directs that detailed planning be initiated.

(f) On receiving the decision of the President or SecDef, the CJCS issues an
ALERTORD to the JPEC to announce the decision. The SecDef approves the ALERTORD.
The order is a record communication that the President or SecDef has approved the detailed
development of a military plan to help resolve the crisis. The contents of an ALERTORD may
vary, and sections may be deleted if the information has already been published, but it should
always describe the selected COA in sufficient detail to allow the supported commander, in
collaboration with other members of the JPEC, to conduct the detailed planning required to
deploy, employ, and sustain forces. However, the ALERTORD does not authorize execution of
the approved COA.

(g) The supported commander develops the OPORD and supporting TPFDD
using an approved COA. Understandably, the speed of completion is greatly affected by the
amount of prior planning and the planning time available. The supported commander and
subordinate and supporting commanders identify actual forces, sustainment, and mobility
resources and describe the CONOPS in OPORD format. They update and adjust planning
accomplished during COA development for any new force and sustainment requirements and
source forces and lift resources. All members of the JPEC identify and resolve shortfalls and
limitations.

(h) The supported CCDR submits the completed OPORD for approval to the
SecDef or President via the CJCS. After an OPORD is approved, the President or SecDef may
decide to begin deployment in anticipation of executing the operation or as a show of resolve,
execute the operation, place planning on hold, or cancel planning pending resolution by some
other means. Detailed planning may transition to execution as directed or become realigned
with continuous situational awareness, which may prompt planning product adjustments and/or
updates.

(i) In CAP, plan development continues after the President or SecDef decides
to execute the OPORD or to return to the pre-crisis situation. When the crisis does not lead to
execution, the CJCS provides guidance regarding continued planning under either crisis action or
contingency planning procedures.

I-21
Chapter I

(6) CAP provides the CJCS and CCDRs a process for getting vital decision-making
information up the chain of command to the President and SecDef. CAP facilitates information
sharing among the members of the JPEC and the integration of military advice from the CJCS in
the analysis of military options. Additionally, CAP allows the President and SecDef to
communicate their decisions rapidly and accurately through the CJCS to the CCDRs, subordinate
and supporting commanders, the Services, and combat support agencies to initiate detailed military
planning, change deployment posture of the identified force, and execute military options. It
also outlines the mechanisms for monitoring the execution of the operation.

(7) Abbreviated Procedures. The preceding discussion describes the activities

sequentially. During a crisis, they may be conducted concurrently or even eliminated, depending
on prevailing conditions. In some situations, no formal WARNORD is issued, and the first
record communication that the JPEC receives is the PLANORD or ALERTORD containing the
COA to be used for plan development. It is also possible that the President or SecDef may
decide to commit forces shortly after an event occurs, thereby significantly compressing planning
activities. No specific length of time can be associated with any particular planning activity.
Severe time constraints may require crisis participants to pass information verbally,
including the decision to commit forces.

15. Global Planning

a. When the scope of contemplated military operations exceeds the authority of a single
CCDR to plan and execute, the President or SecDef directs the CJCS to implement global
planning procedures and assist the SecDef in the strategic direction and integration of the
planning effort. The President or SecDef normally makes the decision to implement global
planning procedures as a UCP responsibility delegated to a CCDR or during the assessment of
the situation. The commander’s assessment supporting this decision could be either the
assessments of multiple CCDRs addressing a similar threat or a single assessment from a CCDR
addressing the threat from a global, cross-AOR perspective. Situations that may trigger this
assessment range the spectrum from major combat operations to the threat of asymmetric attack
that extend across combatant command boundaries and require the strategic integration of the
campaigns and major operations of two or more GCCs. One example of a persistent, asymmetric
threat that is inherently global and poses risk cross-AOR boundaries is adversary exploitation
and attack of DOD computer networks on the global information grid.

b. Per Title 10 of the US Code, the SecDef may assign the CJCS responsibility for overseeing the
activities of the combatant commands. Such assignment by the SecDef does not confer any command
authority on the CJCS and does not alter CCDRs’ responsibilities prescribed in Title 10, US Code,
Section 164(b)(2). A CCDR delegated that authority to do so will lead the global planning effort for the
purposes of planning, integrating, and coordinating a commander’s estimate from a global perspective,
but does not have the authority to execute the resulting plan.

c. When the President or SecDef decides to implement global planning procedures,

the CJCS or delegated CCDR, with the authority of the SecDef, issues a planning directive to
the JPEC and assigns or assumes the role of a supported commander for planning purposes

I-22 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

only. The CJCS or delegated CCDR performs a mission analysis; issues initial global planning guidance
based on national strategic objectives and priorities; and develops global COAs in coordination with the
affected combatant commands, Services, and combat support agencies. The purpose of this global
COA is to mitigate operational seams and vulnerabilities from a global perspective. This will be achieved
through a recommendation for the optimal allocation, prioritization, or reallocation of forces and capabilities
required to develop a cohesive global concept of operation. Global planning procedures will detail how
GCCs will employ forces and capabilities within their AOR in support of another CCDR. The threat
from transnational terrorists illustrates the need for this unity of effort. The global COA will be based
largely on recommendations of the affected CCDRs. These GCC COAs may require reiteration or
refinement as initial planning apportionments are adjusted for compliance within the global concept of
operation. Planners must be aware of competing requirements for potentially scarce, low-density/high-
demand, strategic resources such as intelligence collection assets and transportation and ensure global
planning is coordinated with GFM procedures.

d. When the President or SecDef selects a COA under global planning procedures and
directs that detailed planning be initiated, the CJCS issues an ALERTORD announcing the
decision. The Joint Staff or delegated CCDR expands the approved global COA into a CONOPS
or base plan and develops the OPLAN or OPORD and supporting TPFDD in coordination with
the affected combatant commands and other JPEC members. When the OPLAN or OPORD is
complete, the CJCS or delegated CCDR forwards it to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy for review before final approval by the President or SecDef. When the President or
SecDef approves the plan, the CJCS directs the affected combatant commands, Services, and
combat support agencies to prepare and submit supporting plans for approval by the CJCS or
delegated CCDR.

e. Global planning procedures are also applicable during CAP. Global-crisis conditions
exist when CAP procedures are in progress for situations that threaten two or more CCDRs and
competing demands for forces and capabilities exceed availability. The CJCS or delegated
CCDR is required to mitigate operational seams and vulnerabilities and resolve the conflict over
forces, resources, capabilities, or priorities from a global perspective.

f. When the President or SecDef direct execution of the OPORD or OPLAN, they will also
select a CCDR as supported commander for implementation of the global plan. In the case of
global operations, there could be more than one supported commander for different phases of
the operation and different theaters may be in different phases of the operation. Or one CCDR
may be designated as supported commander to ensure cross-AOR coordination and the
synchronized employment of forces and capabilities, such as global efforts to support counter
proliferation and combat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Global planning procedures do not
absolve GCCs of assigned roles and responsibilities in their AORs.

16. Types of Joint Operation Plans and Orders

Joint operation planning encompasses the preparation of a number of planning and execution-
related products. Some (such as execute orders and deployment orders) are specific to JOPES.
Other products (such as OPLANs, OPORDs, and FRAGORDs) are also developed and used by

I-23
Chapter I

military organizations that have no specific JOPES planning requirements. Figure I-4 lists a number of
these products, and the following paragraphs provide brief descriptions.

a. Base Plan. In JOPES, this is a “level 2” planning document (see paragraph 14e) that contains
paragraphs one through five of the standard OPLAN format, but does not contain annexes.

b. Concept Plan without TPFDD. In JOPES, this is a “level 3” planning document — an

OPLAN in an abbreviated format that would require considerable expansion or alteration to
convert it into an OPLAN or OPORD. A CONPLAN contains the basic plan, the commander’s
CONOPS, and appropriate annexes (A, B, C, D, J, K, S, V, Y and Z) and appendixes. Unless
directed in the JSCP, planners do not calculate detailed support requirements nor prepare TPFDD files.

JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PRODUCTS

Networked collaboration Responsive, flexible
across echelons JOINT OPERATION planning process
PLANNING

CONTINGENCY CRISIS ACTION

PLANNING PLANNING

Iterative dialogue Viable, embedded

among senior leaders execution options

Planning Products
• COMMANDER’S ESTIMATE • PLANNING ORDER
• BASE PLAN • ALERT ORDER
• CONCEPT PLAN (with or • OPERATION ORDER
without time-phased force
and deployment data) • EXECUTE ORDER
• OPERATION PLAN • FRAGMENTARY ORDER
• WARNING ORDER • DEPLOYMENT ORDER

Figure I-4. Joint Operation Planning Products

c. Concept Plan with TPFDD. In JOPES, this is a “level 3” planning document that
contains a TPFDD. It typically requires more detailed planning for the phased deployment of
forces than does a CONPLAN without TPFDD. Phasing, identification of centers of gravity
(COGs), and commander’s intent enhance a clear understanding of what forces are required and
when they have to be deployed in order to achieve strategic objectives. A CONPLAN with
TPFDD may also be required where the primary purpose is to plan for force movement in
support of multinational operations. In this case, the supporting US commander should incorporate

I-24 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

multinational planning considerations to the maximum extent possible. However, the level of detail
contained in supporting CONPLANs depends on the detail of the multinational planning that these
CONPLANs support.

d. Operation Plan. In JOPES, this is a “level 4” planning document. In general, however,

the term OPLAN commonly is used to refer to any complete and detailed plan that contains the
base plan, all required annexes with associated appendixes, and a TPFDD file if applicable.
Among many other requirements, the OPLAN identifies planning assumptions and the specific
forces, functional support, deployment sequence, and resources required to execute the plan. It
provides estimates for their movement into the operational area. An OPLAN can be used as a
basis for rapid development of an OPORD. OPLANs can cover joint operations of any magnitude,
from a single engagement, battle, or noncombat operation to a campaign consisting of multiple
major operations and phases. Planning for a campaign is conducted when contemplated military
operations exceed the scope of a single major operation. See Chapter IV, “Operational Art and
Design,” for more information on campaigns.

e. Supporting Plan. Supporting CCDRs, subordinate JFCs, component commanders,

and combat support agencies prepare supporting plans as tasked by the supported commanders
in support of their plans. Supporting plans are prepared in OPLAN format and are developed
responsively in collaboration with the supported commander’s planners. Supporting commanders
or agencies may, in turn, assign their subordinates the task of preparing additional supporting
plans. In the absence of instructions to the contrary, supported commanders will specify the
level of detail required, and will review and approve supporting plans.

f. Operation Order. An OPORD is a directive issued by a commander to subordinate

commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. OPORDs
are prepared under joint procedures in prescribed formats during CAP.

g. Fragmentary Order. A FRAGORD is an abbreviated form of an OPORD (verbal,

written, or digital), which eliminates the need for restating information contained in a basic
OPORD. It is usually issued as needed or on a day-to-day basis.

h. Warning Order. A WARNORD is a planning directive that initiates the development

and evaluation of military COAs by a supported commander and requests that the supported
commander submit a commander’s estimate.

i. Planning Order. A PLANORD is a planning directive that provides essential planning

guidance and directs the initiation of plan development before the directing authority approves
a military COA.

j. Alert Order. An ALERTORD is a planning directive that provides essential planning

guidance and directs the initiation of plan development after the directing authority approves a
military COA. An ALERTORD does not authorize execution of the approved COA.

k. Execute Order. An EXORD is a directive to implement an approved military COA.

Only the President and the SecDef have the authority to approve and direct the initiation of

I-25
Chapter I

military operations. The CJCS, by the authority of and at the direction of the President or SecDef, may
issue an EXORD to initiate military operations. Supported and supporting commanders and subordinate
JFCs use an EXORD to implement the approved CONOPS.

l. Prepare to Deploy Order and Deployment Order. The CJCS, by the authority of and
at the direction of the President or SecDef, issues a prepare-to-deploy order (PTDO) or deployment
order (DEPORD) to:

(1) Increase or decrease the deployment posture of units.

(2) Transfer forces from one CCDR to another with the gaining CCDR exercising that
command authority over the gained forces as specified by the SecDef in the DEPORD.

(3) Deploy or redeploy forces from one CCDR’s AOR to another.

(4) In the case of a PTDO, propose the day on which a deployment operation begins
(C-day) and the specific hour on C-day when deployment is to commence (L-hour).

(5) In the case of a DEPORD, establish C-day and L-hour.

(6) Direct any other activity that would signal planned US military action or its
termination in response to a particular crisis event or incident.

JOPES Volume I and JOPES Volume II provide the procedures and formats for all JOPES
planning directives.

17. Availability of Forces for Joint Operations

Joint operation planning uses four terms — assigned, attached, apportioned, and allocated
— to define the availability of forces and resources for planning and conducting joint operations.

a. Assigned. Combatant commanders exercise combatant command (command authority)

over assigned forces. Forces are assigned or reassigned when the transfer of forces will be
permanent or for an unknown period of time, or when the broadest level of command authority
is required or desired. Assigned forces are listed in the Forces for Unified Command Memorandum or
as the SecDef designates. A force assigned to a combatant command may be transferred from that
command only as directed by the SecDef.

b. Attached. In joint operations, attached forces and resources are placed under the
operational control or tactical control of a CCDR or other JFCs for a relatively temporary situation.
A force attached to a combatant command may be transferred from that command only as
directed by the SecDef.

c. Apportioned. In the general sense, apportionment is the distribution for planning of limited
resources among competing requirements. Specific apportionments (such as air sorties and forces for

I-26 JP 5-0
 Joint Strategic Planning

planning) are described as apportionment of air sorties and forces for planning, and so forth. The GFM
guidance apportions major combat forces for contingency planning. They may include those assigned
and those expected through mobilization. They may be more or less than the forces actually allocated
for CAP. During force planning, CCDRs assume that apportioned forces will be made available for
execution.

d. Allocated. In the general sense, allocation is the distribution at execution of limited

resources among competing requirements for employment. Specific allocations (such as air
sorties, nuclear weapons, forces, and transportation) are described as allocation of air sorties,
nuclear weapons, and so forth. Allocated forces and resources are those provided by the President
or SecDef for CAP. The allocation of forces and resources is accomplished in JOPES orders.
Allocated augmenting forces become assigned or attached forces when they are transferred to
the receiving CCDR. GFM supports allocation in support of specific requests for capabilities
and forces as well as allocation in support of combatant command rotational force needs.

I-27
Chapter I

Intentionally Blank

I-28 JP 5-0
 CHAPTER II
STRATEGIC DIRECTION

“In total war it is quite impossible to draw any precise line between military and
non-military problems.”

Winston Churchill
Their Finest Hour, 1949

1. General

a. Strategic direction is the common thread that integrates and synchronizes the
activities of the Joint Staff, combatant commands, Services, and combat support agencies.
As an overarching term, strategic direction encompasses the processes and products by which
the President, SecDef, and CJCS provide strategic guidance.

b. The President provides strategic guidance through the NSS, national security presidential
directives, and other strategic documents in conjunction with additional guidance from other
members of the NSC.

c. The SecDef develops the NDS, which establishes broad defense policy goals and priorities for
the development, employment, and sustainment of US military forces based on the NSS. For joint
OPLANs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) prepares the CPG, which is signed by the
President and provides written policy guidance to the CJCS and CCDRs for reviewing and preparing
OPLANs.

d. The CJCS develops the NMS and refines OSD guidance through joint doctrine (joint
publications), policies and procedures (CJCSIs and CJCSMs) such as CJCSI 3110 series (JSCP)
that describes how to employ the military in support of national security objectives.

e. Strategic direction and supporting national-level activities, in concert with the efforts of
CCDRs, ensure the following:

(1) National strategic objectives and termination criteria are clearly defined, understood,
and achievable.

(2) The Active Component is ready for combat and the Reserve Component forces
are appropriately manned, trained, and equipped in accordance with Title 10 responsibilities and
prepared to become part of the total force upon mobilization.

(3) ISR systems and efforts focus on the operational environment.

(4) Strategic guidance is current and timely.

II-1
Chapter II

(5) DOD, other US agencies, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), allies, and coalition
partners are fully integrated at the earliest time during planning and subsequent operations.

(6) All required support assets are ready.

(7) Multinational partners are available and integrated early in the planning process.

(8) Forces and associated sustaining capabilities deploy ready to support the JFC’s
CONOPS.

2. Strategic Communication

a. Strategic communication (SC) is a natural extension of strategic direction, and supports

the President’s strategic guidance, the SecDef’s NDS, and the CJCS’s NMS. SC planning and
execution focus capabilities that apply information as an instrument of national power to create,
strengthen, or preserve an information environment favorable to US national interests. SC
planning establishes unity of US themes and messages, emphasizes success, accurately confirms
or refutes external reporting on US operations, and reinforces the legitimacy of US goals. This
is an interagency effort, which provides an opportunity to advance US regional and global
partnerships. Coordination, approval, and implementation of an SC strategy and specific
information objectives, audiences, themes, and actions will be developed and synchronized
with other US agencies and approved by SecDef.

KEY TERM

strategic communication — Focused US Government efforts to understand

and engage key audiences in order to create, strengthen, or preserve
conditions favorable for the advancement of US Government interests,
policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans,
themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all
instruments of national power.

b. Joint operation planning must include appropriate SC components and ensure

collaboration with the Department of State’s (DOS’s) diplomatic missions. CCDRs consider SC
during peacetime security cooperation planning, and incorporate themes, messages, and other
relevant factors in their security cooperation plans (SCPs). During contingency and CAP, CCDRs
review SC guidance during mission analysis, and their staffs address SC issues, as appropriate,
in their staff estimates. CCDRs will brief the SecDef on their SC planning during contingency
planning and CAP IPRs.

c. The predominant military activities that promote SC themes and messages are information
operations (IO), public affairs (PA), and defense support to public diplomacy (DSPD).

(1) PA and IO Relationship. PA has a role in all aspects of DOD’s missions and functions.
Communication of operational matters to internal and external audiences is one part of PA’s function. In

II-2 JP 5-0
 Strategic Direction

performing duties as one of the primary spokesmen, the public affairs officer’s interaction with the IO
staff enables PA activities to be coordinated and deconflicted with IO. While audiences and intent differ,
both PA and IO ultimately support the dissemination of information, themes, and messages adapted to
their audiences. Many of the nation’s adversaries’leaders rely on limiting their population’s knowledge
to remain in power; PA and IO provide ways to get the joint forces’ messages to these populations.
There also is a mutually supporting relationship between the military’s PA and DSPD efforts and similar
PA and PD activities conducted by US embassies and other agencies.

(2) Synchronization. Synchronized planning of PA, DSPD, and IO is essential for

effective SC. Interagency efforts provide and promote international support for nations in the
region and provide an opportunity to advance our regional and global partnerships. CCDRs
should ensure that their IO, PA, and DSPD planning is consistent with overall USG SC objectives.
Since PA and IO both ultimately support the dissemination of information, themes, and messages
adapted to their audiences, their activities must be closely coordinated and synchronized to
ensure consistent themes and messages are communicated to avoid credibility losses for both
the joint force and PA spokesmen.

d. Level 3 (CONPLAN) and level 4 (OPLAN) plans include an annex Y (Strategic

Communication). This annex will contain a proposed SC strategy, which includes synchronized
information objectives, audiences, themes, and actions to deliver these communications for interagency
coordination and implementation. The SC matrix in JOPES Volume I offers a worksheet to
ensure key SC points are considered.

e. Implementation of a SC strategy requires multiple assets and associated activities to

deliver themes and messages. These can include US and international public diplomacy means
such as senior communicators and figures at home and abroad, respective US and other foreign
embassies in the participating nations, public affairs activities, and specific marketing initiatives.

SECTION A. NATIONAL-LEVEL SYSTEMS

3. Introduction

Four interrelated national-level systems influence and direct the joint operation planning
responsibilities identified in Chapter I, “Joint Strategic Planning.” The four national-level systems
are the NSC system, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process, JSPS, and
JOPES. Chapter I, “Joint Strategic Planning,” summarized JOPES. This section briefly describes the
first three systems.

4. National Security Council System

The NSC system is the principal forum for the interagency deliberation of national security
policy issues requiring Presidential decision. Although the actual structure of the NSC varies
among administrations, the system typically includes a hierarchy of interagency committees and working
groups. The NSC prepares national security guidance that, with Presidential approval, implements
national security policy. These policy decisions provide the basis for military planning and programming.

II-3
Chapter II

For additional information, see CJCSI 5715.01A, Joint Staff Participation in Interagency Affairs.

5. Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process

PPBE is the defense-wide process that relates resources to strategy. The primary objective
of PPBE is the acquisition and allocation of resources to meet the operational requirements of
the CCDRs and the provisioning requirements of the Services and combat support agencies. In
the PPBE process, the SecDef establishes policies, strategy, and prioritized goals for the DOD,
which are subsequently used to guide resource allocation decisions that balance the guidance
with fiscal constraints.

CJCSI 8501.01A, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commanders, and Joint
Staff Participation in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System, describes
participation by the CJCS, the CCDRs, and the Joint Staff in the PPBE process.

6. Joint Strategic Planning System

a. General. The JSPS is one of the primary systems by which the CJCS, in coordination
with the other members of the JCS and the CCDRs, accomplishes contingency planning and
provides military advice to the President and SecDef and recommendations to the PPBE. JSPS
products — such as the NMS and the JSCP — provide guidance and instructions on military
policy, strategy, plans, forces, and resource requirements and allocations essential to successful
execution of the NSS and other Presidential directives. They also provide a means to evaluate
extant US military capabilities, to assess the adequacy and risk associated with current programs
and budgets, and to propose changes for the President’s, SecDef’s, and Congress’ approval.
Figure II-1 illustrates the relationship between national strategic guidance and joint operation
plans developed in JOPES.

The JSCP and its supplemental instructions, as well as the administrative procedures governing
its preparation, are described in detail in CJCSI 3100.01A, Joint Strategic Planning System.

b. Contingency Planning Guidance. The SecDef provides the CJCS with written guidance
for the preparation and review of joint OPLANs. This guidance includes the relative priority of
the plans, specific force levels, and supporting resource levels projected to be available for the
period of time for which such plans are to be effective. The CPG provides this guidance and
directs the CJCS to develop plans to carry out specific missions. It is a primary source document
used by the CJCS to develop the JSCP. For priority plans, OSD also prepares strategic
guidance statements. These statements supplement the CPG with updated information and
more specific policy and regional guidance.

c. National Military Strategy. The NMS describes how the United States should employ its
Armed Forces in support of the President’s NSS. The NMS defines the national military objectives
(i.e., ends), how to accomplish these objectives (i.e., ways), and addresses the military capabilities

II-4 JP 5-0
 Strategic Direction

NATIONAL STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Role of the President and Secretary of Defense

National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy
National Strategy for Homeland Security Strategic Guidance Statements
Contingency Planning Guidance Security Cooperation Guidance

Role of the Chairman of Role of the

the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant Commander
Joint Strategy Review Strategic Estimate

National Military Strategy Theater Strategy

Continuous
Joint Strategic Capabilities Interaction Security Cooperation
Plan & GFM Guidance Strategy

Global Plans and Orders Plans and Orders

Joint Strategic Joint Operation Planning
Planning System and Execution System
Unified Action in Execution
GFM global force management

Figure II-1. National Strategic Direction

required to execute the strategy (i.e., means). The NMS is designed to guide the development of the
JSCP.

d. Global Force Management Guidance. The GFM guidance integrates complementary

assignment, apportionment, and allocation processes into a single management process in support of the
NDS and joint force availability requirements. GFM provides comprehensive insights into the global
availability of US military forces and supports senior decision makers with a process to assess quickly
and accurately the impact and risk of proposed changes in forces or capability assignment, apportionment,
and allocation.

e. Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan. The JSCP provides military strategic and operational
guidance and direction to CCDRs and Service Chiefs for preparation of OPLANs and security
cooperation plans based on current military capabilities. It is the primary vehicle through which the
CJCS exercises responsibility to provide for the preparation of joint operation plans. Based on policy
guidance and tasks in the CPG, the JSCP is the link between strategic guidance and the joint
operation planning activities and products that accomplish that guidance.

II-5
Chapter II

SECTION B. INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION,

AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION CONSIDERATIONS

7. General

Complex security challenges require the skills and resources of many organizations across the
interagency community. In addition to direct coordination with the interagency community, the JFC may
need to coordinate directly (or indirectly through USG agencies) with nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), IGOs, regional organizations, and government agencies of partner nations. Some of the
organizations or agencies that might become involved in contingency or stability operations will have
different goals, capabilities, limitations (such as policy and resource restraints), standards, and operational
philosophies. Despite these differences, the interagency process must bring together the capabilities of
disparate organizations in the pursuit of national security objectives; success can only be achieved
through close interagency coordination and cooperation.

8. Interagency Planning and Coordination

a. JFCs should begin to coordinate and, when appropriate, integrate their activities with
other agencies as early as possible during joint operation planning. Integrating the interagency
community effectively can be vital to successful military operations, especially during theater
shaping and during the stability and enable civil authority phases of an operation when JFCs
may also operate in support of other USG agencies. JFCs and their staffs must consider how the
capabilities of these agencies and NGOs can be leveraged to assist in accomplishing military
missions and the broader national strategic objectives. JFCs should coordinate directly with
interagency representatives within their OAs during planning to ensure appropriate agreements
exist that support their plans (such as working with US embassies to secure overflight rights
with other nations).

b. At the national level, the NSC with its policy coordination committees and working
groups advises and assists the President on all aspects of national security policy. OSD and the
Joint Staff, in consultation with the Services and combatant commands, must ensure that any
interagency support required outside the OA is fully coordinated to support the joint OPLANs.
While supported CCDR’s are the focal points for interagency coordination in support of operations
in their AORs, interagency coordination with supporting commanders is just as important. At
the operational level, subordinate commanders should consider and integrate interagency
capabilities into their estimates, plans, and operations.

c. Military leaders must work with the other members of the national security team in the
most skilled, tactful, and persistent ways to promote unified action. A number of factors can
complicate the coordination process, including the agencies’ different and sometimes conflicting
policies, legal authorities, roles and responsibilities, procedures, and decision-making processes.
Operations in support of civil authorities will be executed by nonmilitary organizations or perhaps
even NGOs with the military in support. In such instances, the understanding of end state and termination
requirements may vary among the participants. The JFC must ensure that interagency planners clearly

II-6 JP 5-0
 Strategic Direction

understand military capabilities, requirements, operational limitations, liaison, and legal considerations
and that military planners understand the nature of the relationship and the types of support they can
provide. In the absence of a formal command structure, JFCs may be required to build
consensus to achieve unity of effort. Robust liaison facilitates understanding, coordination, and
mission accomplishment. The use of effects as a design element in the planning process as a way to
describe the conditions necessary to achieve common objectives can promote a common understanding
of COAs among agencies. This understanding could help harmonize agencies’ responses in conjunction
with joint operations, thus promoting unified action. See Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning
Process,” for more information on incorporating effects in joint operation planning.

KEY TERMS

unified action — A broad generic term that describes the wide scope of
actions (including the synchronization and/or integration of joint or
multinational military operations with the activities of local, state, and federal
government agencies and intergovernmental and nongovernmental
organizations) taking place within unified commands, subordinate unified
commands, or joint task forces under the overall direction of the
commanders of those commands.

interagency coordination — Within the context of Department of Defense

involvement, the coordination that occurs between elements of Department
of Defense, and engaged US Government agencies for the purpose of
achieving an objective.

d. Because the interagency community is not structured like the DOD, command
relationships and lines of authority among them can vary greatly as can interagency planning
processes depending on the nature of the mission. Interagency management techniques often
involve committees, steering groups, or interagency working groups organized along functional
lines. During joint operations, a joint interagency coordination group (JIACG) provides the
CCDR and subordinate JFCs with an increased capability to coordinate with other USG agencies
and departments. The JIACG, an element of a CCDR’s staff, is an interagency staff group that
establishes regular, timely, and collaborative working relationships between civilian and military
operational planners. Composed of USG civilian and military experts assigned to CCDRs and
tailored to meet the CCDRs specific needs, the JIACG provides a CCDR with the capability to
collaborate at the operational level with other USG civilian agencies and departments. JIACG
members participate in contingency, crisis action, and security cooperation planning. They
provide a collaborative conduit back to their parent organizations to help synchronize joint
operations with the efforts of nonmilitary organizations.

e. GCCs (and often subordinate JFCs) are assigned a political advisor (POLAD) by the
DOS. The POLAD provides USG foreign policy perspectives and diplomatic considerations
and establishes linkages with US embassies in the OA and with DOS. The POLAD supplies
information regarding DOS policy goals and objectives that are relevant to the CCDR’s theater
strategy and the subordinate JFC’s plans. The POLAD is directly responsible to the CCDR and can
assist greatly in interagency coordination.

II-7
Chapter II

f. Planning and Coordination with Other Agencies. A supported commander is responsible

for developing annex V, (Interagency Coordination), for each OPLAN. Annex V should specify for
interagency partners not only the capabilities that military planners have determined the military may
need, but also the shared understanding of the situation, and common objectives required to resolve the
situation. This would enable interagency planners to more rigorously plan their efforts in concert with the
military, to suggest other activities or partners that could contribute to the operation, and to better
determine any support requirements they may have. The staff considers interagency participation for
each phase of the operation (see Chapter IV, “Operational Art and Design,” for a discussion of phases).
The shape, deter, stabilize, and enable civil authority phases will likely have the most interagency activity.

(1) The shape phase will contain military security cooperation activities to be
coordinated with other interagency activities. When contingency and crisis action planning are
conducted in a region with security cooperation activities, both military operational and security
cooperation planning must be closely coordinated and linked with interagency plans. In addition,
early flexible deterrent activities by all instruments of national power may begin during this
phase.

(2) The deter phase will include a set of flexible deterrent options (FDOs) designed to
preclude the use of military force by influencing achievement of a satisfactory national strategic
end state short of military conflict. At the same time, planning during these phases must account
for the requirements and timeframes needed by DOS to enact previously negotiated agreements
and arrangements with foreign nations that permit the overflight and access to sovereign territories
in support of anticipated deployment and employment of joint forces.

(3) The stabilize and enable civil authority phases generally require a high level of
coherent, coordinated interagency activity. The complex nature of the security, transition, and
reconstruction operations — and other stability operations conducted during these phases —
also normally includes joint force interaction with many IGOs, NGOs, regional security
organizations, and host-nation organizations. Continual liaison and sharing of information
between the joint forces and these agencies via the JIACG, civil-military operations center, and
other venues will be instrumental in accomplishing US national objectives.

g. Consequence Management (CM). CM actions are those taken to maintain or restore

essential services and manage and mitigate problems resulting from disasters and catastrophes,
including natural, man-made, or terrorist incidents. These actions are often associated with early phases
of campaigns or operations that do not involve combat, such as disaster relief. They also can be
required later in the phasing construct (stabilize and enable civil authority phases) when combat
operations are drawing to a close. CM may be planned and executed for locations within US-owned
territory at home and abroad and in foreign countries as directed by the President and SecDef. Military
support for domestic CM will be provided through Commander, United States Northern Command,
Commander, United States Southern Command, or Commander, United States Pacific Command
depending upon the location of the incident. DOS is the federal agency with lead responsibility for
foreign CM and the Department of Homeland Security is the “Primary Agency” for domestic CM. US

II-8 JP 5-0
 Strategic Direction

military support to foreign CM normally will be provided to the foreign government through the combatant
command within whose AOR the incident occurs.

For further CM guidance, refer to CJCSI 3125.01, Military Assistance to Domestic Consequence
Management Operations in Response to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-
Yield Explosive Situation; CJCSI 3214.01A, Foreign Consequence Management Operations;
JPs 3-07.6, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Foreign Humanitarian Assistance; 3-26,
Homeland Security; 3-28, Civil Support; and 3-41, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and
High Yield Explosives Consequence Management.

h. As part of plan refinement, and with approval of the SecDef, the CCDR may present the
plan’s annex V (Interagency Coordination) to OSD/Joint Staff annex V working group for transmittal to
the NSC for managed interagency staffing and plan development. In advance of authorization for
formal transmittal of annex V to the NSC, the CCDR may request interagency consultation on approved
annex V elements by the OSD/Joint Staff working group. During this step, the CCDR may present the
plan for multinational involvement. The CCDR or subordinate JFC should ensure that SC themes and
messages in annex V are consistent with the OPLAN’s annex Y (Strategic Communication).

See JP 3-08 Volume I, Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Coordination During Joint Operations, and CJCSM 3122.03B, Joint Operation
Planning and Execution System, Volume II: (Planning Formats), for additional information.

SECTION C. MULTINATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

9. General

Collective security is a strategic goal of the United States, and joint operation planning will
frequently be accomplished within the context of multinational operation planning for
multinational operations. There is no single doctrine for multinational action, and each alliance
or coalition develops its own protocols and OPLANs. US planning for joint operations must
accommodate and complement such protocols and plans. JFCs must also anticipate and
incorporate planning factors such as domestic and international laws, regulations, and operational
limitations on the use of various weapons and tactics.

10. Multinational Operations

a. “Multinational operations” is a collective term to describe military actions conducted by forces

of two or more nations. Such operations are usually undertaken within the structure of a coalition or
alliance, although other possible arrangements include supervision by an IGO (such as the United Nations
or Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). Acoalition is an ad hoc arrangement between
two or more nations for common action. Nations usually form coalitions for a single occasion or for
longer cooperation in a narrow area of common interest. An alliance is a result of formal agreements
between two or more nations for broad, long-term objectives that further the common interests of the
members. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one example of an alliance.

II-9
Chapter II

b. Joint forces should be prepared for combat and noncombat operations with forces from other
nations within the framework of an alliance or coalition under US or another nation’s leadership.
“Following,” “contributing,” and “supporting” are important roles in multinational operations — often as
important as “leading.” However, US forces often will be the predominant and most capable force
within an alliance or coalition and can be expected to play a central leadership role. The military leaders
of member nations must emphasize common objectives and shared interests as well as mutual support
and respect. Additionally, the cultivation and maintenance of personal relationships between each
counterpart is fundamental to achieving success.

11. Multinational Planning and Coordination

a. Planning for multinational operations is accomplished in multinational and national

channels. Multinational force commanders develop multinational strategies and plans in
multinational channels. JFCs perform supporting joint operation planning for multinational
operations in US national channels. Coordination of these separate planning channels occurs at
the national level by established multinational bodies or coalition member nations and at the
theater-strategic and operational levels by JFCs, who are responsible within both channels for
operation planning matters. US doctrine and procedures for joint operation planning also are
conceptually applicable to multinational challenges, and the general considerations for interaction
with IGOs and host nation organizations are similar to those for interaction with USG agencies.
The fundamental issues are much the same for both situations.

b. Strategic Integration. In support of each coalition or alliance, a hierarchy of bilateral

or multilateral bodies is established to define objectives, develop strategies, and to coordinate
strategic guidance for planning and executing multinational operations. Through dual involvement
in national and multinational security processes, US national leaders integrate national and theater
strategic planning with that of the alliance or coalition. Within the multinational structure, US
participants ensure that objectives and strategy complement US interests and are compatible
with US capabilities. Within the US national structure, US participants ensure that international
commitments are reflected in national military strategy and are adequately addressed in strategic
guidance for joint operation planning. Planning with IGOs and NGOs is often necessary,
particularly for foreign humanitarian assistance, peace operations, and other civil-military
operations (CMO). Incorporating NGOs and their capabilities into the planning process requires
the JFC and staff to balance NGOs’ information requirements with operations security.
Additionally, many NGOs are hesitant to become associated with military organizations in any
form of formal relationship, because doing so could compromise their stature as an independent
entity, restrict their freedom of movement and even place their members at risk in uncertain or
hostile permissive environments. One possible mechanism to coordinate this and achieve unity
of effort during execution is to conduct daily strategic-level meetings in a CMO working group in the
OA. The goal of this group could be to assemble all the participants who have a part in CMO to focus
and synchronize their efforts to achieve the JFC’s CMO priorities.

c. Operational-level Integration. The commander of US national forces dedicated to a

multinational military organization is responsible for integrating joint operation planning with multinational
planning at the operational level. Normally, this will be the CCDR or the subordinate JFC responsible

II-10 JP 5-0
 Strategic Direction

for the geographic area within which multinational operations are to be planned and executed. These
commanders function within both the US and multinational chains of command. Within the multinational
organizations, they command or support the designated multinational force and plan, as appropriate, for
multinational employment in accordance with strategic guidance emanating from multinational leadership.
Within the US chain of command, they command joint US forces and prepare joint OPLANs in response
to requirements from the President, SecDef, and the CJCS. These tasks include developing joint
OPLANs to support each multinational commitment within the CCDR’sAOR and planning for unilateral
US contingencies within the same area. In this dual capacity, the US commander coordinates multinational
planning with joint operation planning.

d. Bilateral Planning. When directed, designated US commanders participate directly

with the armed forces of other nations in preparing bilateral OPLANs. Bilateral operation planning
involves the preparation of combined, mutually developed and approved plans governing the
employment of the forces of two nations for a common contingency. Bilateral planning may be
accomplished within the framework of a treaty or alliance or in the absence of such arrangements.
Bilateral planning is accomplished in accordance with specific guidance provided by the President,
SecDef, or CJCS.

e. Language and Regional Expertise. Language skills and regional knowledge are integral
to joint operations. Joint forces deployed in the context of multinational operations must
understand and effectively communicate with the native populations, local and government
officials, and coalition partners when in theater. Lessons learned from Operations IRAQI
FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM have demonstrated that this force-multiplying
capability can save lives and is integral to successful mission accomplishment. CCDRs and
supporting commanders should routinely integrate foreign language and regional expertise
capabilities within security cooperation, contingency, and crisis action planning efforts, and in
meeting day-to-day manning requirements in support of operations.

CJCSI 3126.01, Language and Regional Expertise Planning, provides additional planning
guidance and procedures.

12. Review of Multinational Plans

US joint strategic plans or OPLANs prepared in support of multinational plans are developed,
reviewed, and approved exclusively within US operational channels. They are not shared in
total with multinational partners. Selected portions and/or applicable planning and deployment
data may be released in accordance with CJCSI 5714.01, Policy for the Release of Joint Information.
USG representatives and commanders within each multinational organization participate in multinational
planning and exchange information in mutually devised forums, documents, and plans. The formal
review and approval of multinational plans is accomplished in accordance with specific procedures
adopted by each multinational organization and may or may not include separate US review or approval.
Bilateral OPLANs routinely require national-level US approval.

II-11
Chapter II

JP 3-16, Multinational Operations, and JP 4-08, Joint Doctrine for Logistics Support of Multinational
Operations, provide greater detail. CJCSM 3122.01, JOPES Volume I, describes review and
approval procedures for multinational OPLANs.

II-12 JP 5-0
 CHAPTER III
THE JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PROCESS

“War plans cover every aspect of a war, and weave them all into a single operation
that must have a single, ultimate objective in which all particular aims are
reconciled. No one starts a war or rather, no one ought to do so without first
being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends
to conduct it.”

Carl von Clausewitz

On War, 1832

SECTION A. INTRODUCTION

1. General

a. Joint operation planning blends two complementary processes. The first is the joint
operation planning process, introduced in Chapter I, “Joint Strategic Planning.” JOPP is an
orderly, analytical planning process, which consists of a set of logical steps to analyze a mission,
develop, analyze, and compare alternative COAs, select the best COA, and produce a plan or
order. The second process is operational design, the use of various design elements in the
conception and construction of the framework that underpins a joint operation plan and its
subsequent execution. The operational design elements are used throughout JOPP and are
fundamental to that process. For example, they consider the elements termination, end state,
objectives, and effects as early as possible during mission analysis. Chapter IV, “Operational
Art and Design,” provides the details on most operational design elements.

b. Chapter III focuses on joint operation planning processes and products, with emphasis
on common planning activities that apply at any level of joint command. This chapter highlights
and discusses certain elements of operational design where appropriate.

(1) SECTION A discusses joint operation planning considerations, including the JFC’s
and staff’s roles in the planning process.

(2) SECTION B covers the relationship of strategic guidance and four elements of
operational design: termination, end state, objectives, and effects. These are key elements that
the JFC and staff consider early and throughout JOPP.

(3) SECTION C focuses on the JOPP steps.

(4) SECTION D provides information on commander and staff estimates that guide
and support the planning process.

(5) SECTION E briefly discusses the transition from planning to execution and the
planning that occurs continuously throughout execution.

III-1
Chapter III

c. Joint operation planning must be flexible and responsive to dynamic conditions.

Commands and organizations must be able to rapidly and accurately process and integrate data
to provide actionable information to commanders and their staffs across multiple command
echelons. Policies, procedures, and tools related to joint operation planning continue to evolve
with the ever-changing operational environment. This provides the JPEC and others with dynamic
and integrated collaborative capabilities for all aspects of joint operation planning. Today’s
dynamic, fast-paced security environment demands that the JPEC be able to gather, review,
integrate, and act upon information rapidly in a knowledge-based, collaborative environment.
Distributed, collaborative planning procedures and capabilities allow the JPEC to build a plan in
discrete elements or sub-plans in parallel and to synchronize their products. Collaboration also
provides JPEC members with a “view of the whole” while working on various sections of a plan
and provides them with the means to identify and resolve planning conflicts early.

d. Planning requires cooperation between combatant commands and Services and interaction
outside traditional military “stovepipes” with the interagency community, multinational partners,
and other interested parties. Enhanced by automation, standardized joint planning processes,
procedures, and terminology enable integrated and collaborative plan development and
refinement. Collaboration facilitates concurrent COA development, force planning, deployment
planning, support planning, and integrated feasibility determinations across multiple commands
and combat support agencies.

e. JFCs and staffs should consider how to involve relevant government agencies and other nonmilitary
organizations in the planning process and how to integrate and synchronize joint force actions with the
operations of these agencies. Regardless of the level of involvement by nonmilitary agencies during the
planning process, commanders and staffs must consider their impact on joint operations. The military
option may be the least desirable option, and a decision to execute a military option is usually made only
after the President and SecDef have determined that nonmilitary options are insufficient or unsuitable. In
deciding to develop a military option, the President and SecDef may consider a range of flexible
deterrent options, including military FDOs. To assist the President and SecDef in their decisionmaking,
the CJCS and supported commanders must explicitly relate military FDOs to nonmilitary FDOs as they
develop their OPLANs and orders in close coordination with interagency partners. Appendix A,
“Flexible Deterrent Options,” provides examples of FDOs.

f. Effective planning requires sufficient planning time. However, improved processes and technology
support can reduce planning time without affecting results, which can help the JFC operate inside the
decision cycle of an adversary. As a formal planning system, JOPES provides for iterative, adaptive
development of plans that require interaction between joint force commanders and the CJCS, SecDef,
and President. The JOPP supports JOPES and provides a generic, logical process that
commanders and planners can apply at any level.

III-2 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

2. The Commander’s Role in Joint Operation Planning

a. The commander is the focal point of decisionmaking and execution during military
operations. Commanders play a critical role in the planning process. Once given a mission,
objective, and/or tasks in the higher headquarters plan or order, commanders form their initial
situational understanding using their experience, judgment, and initial staff inputs. From this
they develop an initial picture of the military end state and a construct for how to reach it. This
provides the basis for their initial commander’s intent statement, planning guidance, and
commander’s critical information requirements (CCIRs). The commander continues to
refine these during planning until the plan or order is published.

b. Commanders direct throughout planning. This direction takes the form of interaction
with the staff, guidance on the development of products, and decisions at key points in the
process, such as approval of a COA. In CAP, this interaction typically is continuous as the JOPP
steps are compressed and blend together.

c. Commanders ensure that subordinate commands have sufficient time to plan, particularly
in a CAP situation. They do so by issuing WARNORDs at the earliest opportunity and by
collaborating with other commanders, agency leaders, and multinational partners as appropriate
to ensure a clear understanding of the commander’s mission, intent, guidance, and priorities.
Commanders resolve command-level issues that are beyond the staff’s authority. Examples of
such issues include the close-hold, compartmented planning that occurs with some sensitive
operations and the continuing challenge of incorporating other agencies and multinational partners
in JOPP given their potentially limited capabilities and restricted access to some information.

3. The Staff’s Role in Joint Operation Planning

a. The role of the staff is to support the commander in achieving situational

understanding; in making decisions in a given situation or making decisions faster and
better than a thinking, adaptive enemy in an environment of uncertainty; in disseminating
directives; and in following directives through execution. The staff’s effort during planning
focuses on developing effective plans and orders and helping the commander make related
decisions. The staff does this by integrating situation-specific information with sound doctrine
and technical competence. The staff’s planning activities initially focus on mission analysis,
which develops information to help the commander, staff, and subordinate commanders
understand the situation and mission. During COA development and comparison, the staff
provides recommendations to support the commander’s selection of a COA. Once the commander
approves a COA, the staff coordinates all necessary details and prepares the plan or order.

b. Throughout planning, staff officers prepare recommendations within their functional

areas, such as system, weapons, and munitions capabilities, limitations, and employment; risk
identification and mitigation; resource allocation and synchronization of supporting assets; and
multinational and interagency considerations. Staff sections prepare and continuously update
staff estimates that address these and other areas. The staff maintains these estimates throughout
the operation, not just during pre-execution planning.

III-3
Chapter III

The following vignette is used in Chapters III and IV to illustrate key

points and provide examples of processes and products related to joint
operation planning and operational design. The vignette is not intended
to be comprehensive enough to describe every process step.

This situation requires crisis action planning in anticipation of very near-

term commitment of forces.

D-41 (112000Z Jan):

In a fictional Command’s (XCOM’s) area of responsibility (AOR), tensions

over a border dispute between Country Red and Country Gray have recently
escalated. The combatant commander (CCDR) of XCOM has confirmed
that 23 of 36 critical indicators (including three of five national political
indicators) have been executed, which project that Red will attack Gray in
the next six weeks. Although not an ally, Gray maintains a favorable
relationship with the US, including economic trade and military-to-military
contacts. Country Gray is a primary supplier to the US of certain minerals
important to the production of US military satellite systems. Gray also is
strategically located adjacent to Country Green, a US ally which controls a
key seaport important both for military purposes and as a significant hub
on ocean trade routes. Gray and Green have limited military capability.

Country Red historically has been less than friendly toward the US,
although the US and Red maintain embassies and economic trade. The US
is the primary supplier of essential machinery components used in Red’s
manufacturing industry. However, a recent coup by Red’s military leader
deposed the former Red President, who fled the country with his key
advisors. US-Red relations have deteriorated during the past six months.
During the last three months in particular, Red has sponsored anti-US
demonstrations and is suspected of terrorist acts against US and pro-
Western facilities in the region. Intelligence sources indicate that the Red
leader is attempting to formalize an alliance with certain countries in belief
that this will greatly degrade US influence and ability to act in the region.
Intelligence analysts believe that Red’s unstated strategic objective is control
of Country Green and its seaport.

The President of Green has expressed concern over the deteriorating

situation to the US President through diplomatic channels, and the Prime
Minister of Gray has requested US military assistance. The US President
convenes the National Security Council (NSC) to discuss a response to
Red’s anticipated attack against Gray. Commander, XCOM (CDRXCOM)
monitors by secure video telconferencing (VTC).

III-4 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

SECTION B. THE RELATIONSHIP OF STRATEGIC GUIDANCE,

TERMINATION, END STATE, OBJECTIVES, EFFECTS, AND THE SYSTEMS
PERSPECTIVE OF THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

4. General

This section highlights the importance of understanding strategic purpose as early as

possible in the planning process. Strategic guidance should provide a clear understanding of
purpose, but could require interpretation and clarification as planning progresses. This guidance
helps relate key elements of operational design, such as termination, end state, objectives, and
effects. The section also discusses the systems perspective of the operational environment, an
approach that supports joint operation planning and joint intelligence preparation of the operational
environment.

5. National and Multinational Strategic Guidance

a. General. Strategic guidance is essential to joint operation planning and operational

design. As Chapter II, “Strategic Direction,” discussed, the President, SecDef, CJCS, and CCDRs
all promulgate strategic guidance. In general, this guidance provides long-term as well as
intermediate or ancillary objectives. From the perspective of the military instrument of national
power, this guidance should provide the purpose of military operations and define what constitutes
“victory” or success (ends) and should allocate adequate forces and resources (means) to achieve
strategic objectives. The supported JFC proposes the method (ways) of employing military
capabilities to achieve the ends.

b. The National Strategic End State. For specific situations that require the employment of
military capabilities (particularly for anticipated major operations), the President and SecDef typically
will establish a set of national strategic objectives. The supported CCDR often will have a role in
achieving more than one national objective. Some national objectives will be the primary responsibility
of the CCDR, while others will require a more balanced use of all instruments of national power, with the
CCDR in support of other agencies. Achievement of these objectives should result in attainment of the
national strategic end state — the broadly expressed conditions that should exist at the end
of a campaign or operation. The supported CCDR must work closely with the civilian leadership to
ensure a clearly defined national strategic end state is established when possible. Often this end state is
uncertain, difficult to determine with clarity, or an estimate based on assumptions and unpredictable
conditions in the operational environment. In some situations, operations must begin before a clear
understanding of the end state is determined. For all cases, the CCDR must work to frame the problem
with the best information available and be prepared to reassess the situation and reframe the problem, as
required. Thinking of this “end state” as an integrated set of aims is useful because national strategic
objectives usually are closely related rather than independent. Therefore, consideration of all of the
objectives necessary to reach the national strategic end state will help the supported CCDR formulate
proposed termination criteria — the specified standards approved by the President or the
SecDef that must be met before a joint operation can be concluded. Commanders and their

III-5
Chapter III

staffs must understand that many factors can affect national strategic objectives, possibly causing the
national strategic end state to change even as military operations unfold.

D-41 (112000Z Jan):

The President has decided to respond. In the NSC meeting, he provides

the following guidance, which contains national strategic objectives
(underlined text) that comprise the desired national strategic end state:

“I want to (1) maintain the sovereignty of countries Gray and Green and
reestablish the conditions for a secure and stable region. This will require
an integrated US government (USG) agency and international effort to
diffuse the situation and dissuade the Red leader from attacking Gray. The
Department or Defense’s (DOD’s) immediate contribution to this will be
the rapid deployment of forces to the region to assure our allies and friends,
deter Red aggression, and respond with military force, if necessary, to defeat
Red. If our efforts are successful, we will convene again to discuss a longer-
term approach to our relationship and response to Red’s future actions.”

“If deterrence fails, we will take steps to protect our strategic regional
interests and those of our regional allies. We need to be able to (2) defend
Gray and Green from Red attack and defeat or eject Red forces from Gray in
the event hostilities commence. Although the military capabilities of Gray
and Green are limited, this must be a coalition response to Red aggression,
not just a US effort. DOD is the lead for the immediate US military response.
I want the Department of State (DOS) to integrate the efforts of USG
agencies and coordinate a complementary international response. DOD
and DOS must collaborate closely to integrate their agencies’ actions
throughout this crisis. We must provide sufficient security for Green as
soon as possible. The President of Green has not invited US forces in, but
we must be in position to respond. Defense of Gray is important, but security
of Green is critical to our national interests and the security of the region.
I also want to (3) degrade Red’s offensive military capabilities to the point
that Red is not a significant threat to other countries in the region.”

“If Red attacks, I am inclined to do what is necessary to (4) support

disaffected internal groups working to return Red to a representative
government. The current Red leader’s actions during the past six months
are destabilizing the region, and his rhetoric does not indicate he will change
his views even if we prevent the attack. I believe we can now substantiate
that he directed the terrorist attacks against our facilities in Green and Gray
and other Western interests. I want us to (5) identify and degrade terrorist
capabilities in Red and elsewhere in the region as much as we can. We
need to influence regional opinion against Red through our strategic
communication initiatives.”

III-6 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

“We believe that only the current Red leader and a few key military
subordinates accomplished the bloodless military coup d’etat six months
ago. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director advises that the Red
military likely will follow new senior military leaders installed by a new
President. While he wasn’t our best friend, the former President of Red
ran a reasonably stable government and humane regime. The Secretary of
State (SECSTATE) advises that this leader would be the best option for
stabilizing Red quickly if there were a change in leadership. We must (6)
help reinstate the former leader if the opportunity presents itself.
SECSTATE will make the appropriate overtures to the former leader to
determine his willingness and powerbase.”

“If Red attacks, we must be ready to (7) support post-conflict operations

in both Red and Gray. We won’t know the extent of these efforts in advance,
but I want SECSTATE to take the lead now for both planning and executing
these efforts. Coordinate with the Secretary of Defense (SecDef), since
post-conflict requirements can affect the military’s concept for major combat
operations.”

“I want to ensure that the situation is stable in both Red and Gray before
we withdraw our military forces, but want to avoid conditions that will require
any long-term US military presence.”

“As we deal with this crisis, we need to (8) seek opportunities to

strengthen regional nations’ ability to defend themselves from future
aggression by Red.”

c. Multinational Strategic Guidance. In multinational settings, military committee

directives provide the strategic guidance and direction for joint operation planning. In
multinational situations, the CCDR and staff, as well as component and supporting commanders
and their staffs, must clearly understand the objectives and conditions that the national or
multinational political leadership want the multinational military force to attain in terms of the
internal and external balance of power, regional security, geopolitics, and so forth. When
multinational strategic objectives are unclear or ambiguous, the senior US military commander
must seek clarification and convey the positive or negative impact of continued ambiguity to the
President and SecDef.

6. Termination of Military Operations and the Military End State

a. Termination and end state are elements of operational design. Although Chapter IV,
“Operational Art and Design,” focuses on operational design, this section discusses termination
— along with the design elements end state, objectives, and effects — because the JFC and staff
require a clear understanding of these elements as they conduct mission analysis and proceed
through the remainder of JOPP steps.

b. The President or SecDef, with the advice of the CJCS and the supported CCDR, should
clearly describe the national strategic end state before committing the Armed Forces of the United

III-7
Chapter III

States to an operation. The CJCS or the supported CCDR may recommend a military end state, but
the President or SecDef should formally approve it. A clearly defined military end state complements
and supports attaining the specified termination criteria and objectives associated with other instruments
of national power. The military end state helps affected CCDRs modify their theater strategic estimates
and begin mission analysis even without a pre-existing OPLAN. The CCDR must work closely with
the civilian leadership to ensure a clearly defined military end state is established. The CCDR also
should anticipate that military capability likely would be required in some capacity in support of other
instruments of national power, potentially before, during, and after any required large-scale combat. A
clearly defined end state is just as necessary for situations across the range of military operations that
might not require large-scale combat. While there may not be an armed adversary to confront in
some situations, the JFC still must think in terms of ends, ways, and means that will lead to
success.

c. Effective planning cannot occur without a clear picture of the military end state and
termination criteria. Knowing when to terminate military operations and how to preserve achieved
advantages is essential to achieving the national strategic end state. When and under what
circumstances to suspend or terminate military operations is a political decision. Even so, it is
essential that the CJCS and the supported JFC advise the President and SecDef during the decision-
making process. The supported JFC should ensure that political leaders understand the
implications, both immediate and long term, of a suspension of hostilities at any point in the
conflict. Once established, the national strategic objectives enable the supported commander to
develop the military end state, recommended termination criteria, and supporting military
objectives.

d. Commanders strive to end combat operations on terms favorable to the United States, its
allies or coalition partners, and the host nation. In combat operations, the basic element of this
goal is gaining control over the adversary. When friendly forces have destroyed an adversary’s
ability to conduct armed resistance, the adversary may have to accept defeat, terminate active
hostilities, or revert to other forms of resistance such as terrorism, geopolitical actions, guerrilla
warfare, or nonviolent resistance. Nonetheless, a hasty or ill-designed end to the operation may
bring with it the possibility that related disputes will arise, leading to further conflict. There is a
delicate balance between the desire for quick victory and termination on truly favorable terms.

e. The Military End State. This end state is the set of required conditions that defines
achievement of all military objectives. It normally represents a point in time and/or
circumstances beyond which the President does not require the military instrument of
national power as the primary means to achieve remaining national objectives. While it
may mirror many of the conditions of the national strategic end state, the military end state
typically will be more specific and contain other supporting conditions. These conditions contribute
to developing termination criteria, the specified standards approved by the President and/or the
SecDef that must be met before a joint operation can be concluded. Aside from its obvious
association with strategic or operational objectives, clearly defining the military end state promotes
unity of effort, facilitates synchronization, and helps clarify (and may reduce) the risk associated
with the joint campaign or operation. Commanders should include the military end state in their
planning guidance and commander’s intent statement.

III-8 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

f. Termination. Properly conceived termination criteria are essential to ensuring that victories
achieved with military forces endure. When planning a joint operation, the supported JFC and the
subordinate commanders consider the nature of the conflict and the type of military operations that will
establish the conditions necessary to bring the conflict to a favorable end. The CCDR then will consult
with the CJCS and the SecDef to establish the termination criteria. To facilitate development of effective
termination criteria, it must be understood that US forces must be dominant in not only the phases that
involve major combat operations, but also in the “stabilize” and “enable civil authority” phases to achieve
the leverage sufficient to impose a lasting solution. If the termination criteria have been properly set and
met, the necessary leverage should exist to prevent the adversary from renewing hostilities and to
dissuade other adversaries from interfering. When addressing conflict termination, commanders and
their staffs must consider a wide variety of operational issues, to include disengagement, force protection,
transition to post-conflict operations, reconstitution, and redeployment. They must also anticipate the
nature of post-conflict operations.

D-41 (112200Z Jan):

Although an approved XCOM operation plan (OPLAN) does not exist for
this specific contingency, CDRXCOM recently had directed the XCOM staff
to begin crisis action planning (CAP) for potential operations in the region.
The focus has been on joint intelligence preparation of the operational
environment (JIPOE) and identifying potential options to deal with Red
aggression. The President’s national-strategic objectives will help XCOM
focus the planning effort.

After the NSC meeting, CDRXCOM consults with the SecDef, SECSTATE,
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). They discuss the
President’s objectives and guidance within the context of the overall
regional, theater, and global war on terrorism (GWOT) strategies, translating
the President’s objectives into a proposed military end state. This focuses
CDRXCOM’s process of planning theater operations to achieve this end
state. They also begin to identify what actions are needed by other US
agencies to set the conditions for military operations and exploit the results.
SECSTATE verifies that the Coordinator for Reconstruction and
Stabilization (S/CRS) will be the DOS lead for post-conflict planning and
operations.

There is common agreement that the Red leader will not be dissuaded
from attacking Gray, but also that Red military capabilities are no match for
those of US forces. While the eventual military outcome is not an issue, US
forces will be challenged by long lines of communication, force protection
issues, and the post-conflict regional security situation. Apparently Country
Red’s leader believes the US will not intervene militarily because of this
deployment challenge and other US commitments around the world. If Red
attacks when anticipated, SecDef agrees that the length of US military
commitment will depend primarily on two factors: first, how long it takes to
deploy sufficient combat power to defeat Red forces and then stabilize

III-9
Chapter III

Red and the region following large-scale military operations; and second,
the amount and nature of international support that can be generated and
sustained throughout operations. There is common agreement that these
considerations need to shape the response force and how it will be
employed.

The SecDef agrees that, if Red attacks, the military end state will be
reached at a point in time during the enable civil authority phase when
Red’s military has been defeated, the regional security situation (Red, Green,
and Gray) is stabilized, and US forces are no longer needed as the primary
means to achieve national objectives, even though military support to post-
conflict stability or reconstruction activities will continue at some level.
SECSTATE indicates that early, integrated, post-conflict coordination and
planning with S/CRS will be essential to a smooth, timely transition during
this phase. As the discussion continues, the CCDR proposes the following
termination criteria:

1. Gray and Green borders are secure.

2. A stable security environment exists in Gray, Green, and Red.
3. Red no longer poses a military threat to the region.
4. Non-DOD agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and/or
nongovernmental organizations effectively lead and conduct
reconstruction and humanitarian assistance operations.
5. US military forces return to shaping and security cooperation activities.

Based on the outcome of earlier planning, the CCDR briefs the SecDef
and CJCS on a proposed joint operations area (JOA) for the operation. He
also briefs the employment concept for Phase I (Deter), which primarily
involves the rapid deployment of forces in support of the President’s first
objective and positions forces for Phase II operations (Seize Initiative).
CDRXCOM intends to command the operations of XCOM’s components from
a forward headquarters (HQ). His concept envisions focusing on defense
of Gray, initially with long-range airpower and a carrier strike group if Red
attacks earlier than expected. He has already directed that the carrier strike
group in the XCOM AOR reposition to be on station within the next week.
Current indicators are that Country Red will not attack for at least four
weeks, so additional near-term deployments include ground forces that
can be in defensive positions in Gray within 14 days. These would deploy
from within the AOR. The CCDR also identifies the assistance XCOM needs
from DOS, including basing and over-flight rights, coordination with US
embassies in Gray and Green, and early activation of the S/CRS lead and
staff for post-conflict planning. The SecDef approves the JOA and
employment concept, directs the CJCS to issue the deployment order, and
agrees to work interdepartmental issues through the NSC and directly with
SECSTATE.

III-10 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

7. Military Objectives

a. Objective is another element of operational design. Once the military end state is
understood and termination criteria are established, operational design continues with development
of strategic and operational military objectives. Joint operation planning integrates military
actions and capabilities with those of other instruments of national power in time, space, and
purpose in unified action to achieve the JFC’s objectives. Objectives and their supporting effects
provide the basis for identifying tasks to be accomplished.

b. Strategic Military Objectives. An objective is a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable

goal toward which every military operation should be directed.

(1) Strategic military objectives define the role of military forces in the larger context
of national strategic objectives. This focus on strategic military objectives is one of the most
important considerations in operational design. The nature of the political aim, taken in balance
with the sources of national strength and vulnerabilities, must be compared with the strengths
and vulnerabilities of the adversary and/or other factors in the operational environment to arrive
at reasonably attainable strategic military objectives. Strategic objectives must dominate the
planning process at every juncture.

(2) Operational- and tactical-level headquarters also use objectives during planning.
Tactical objectives often are associated with the specific “target” of an action. In this context, an
objective could be a terrain feature, the seizing or defending of which is essential to the
commander’s plan; or it could be an enemy force or capability, the destruction of which creates
a vulnerability for the adversary. But tactical commanders also can designate objectives in the
larger sense — that is, clearly defined goals associated with some aspect of the commander’s
mission. The specific use of objective at the tactical level varies by Service.

(3) For situations such as the hypothetical vignette, strategic military objectives could
look like tasks. In this vignette, the President’s second objective is to “. . defend Gray and Green
from Red attack and destroy or eject Red forces . . .” In the vignette continuation below, the
CCDR’s first and second objectives relate directly to the President’s objective. Although joint
doctrine does not prescribe a specific convention for writing an objective statement, there
are three primary considerations. First, they should link directly or indirectly to one or more
higher-level objectives; next, they should be as unambiguous as possible; finally, they should
not specify ways and means for their accomplishment.

D-40 (120800Z Jan):

XCOM planning in the past few weeks addressed the possibility of limited
military operations against the Country of Red. The current situation has
validated some of the initial CAP assumptions, but not others. The CCDR
conducts a secure VTC with the key staff and component commanders and
provides planning guidance, including the following broad theater-strategic
objectives for this operation:

III-11
Chapter III

1. Gray and Green sovereignty is maintained

2. Regional terrorism is reduced
3. Regional security and stability are restored

These theater-strategic objectives align closely with the national-strategic

objectives and are specific to the crisis at hand. However, they are not
identical to the President’s objectives, since DOS and other agencies will
be the lead for certain operations, particularly in support of the President’s
objectives 4, 6, and 7. Moreover, some of these objectives would change if
Red does not attack or if there is a change of government and military
leadership in Red should conditions permit. The theater-strategic objectives
also support the CCDR’s broader security cooperation goals and President’s
GWOT objectives.

The CCDR directs the operations directorate (J-3) to prepare and issue
a warning order.

8. Effects

a. An effect is a physical and/or behavioral state of a system that results from an

action, a set of actions, or another effect. A desired effect can also be thought of as a condition
that can support achieving an associated objective, while an undesired effect is a condition that
can inhibit progress toward an objective. Throughout this publication, the term “effects” is
intended to mean both desired and undesired effects unless otherwise specified.

b. The use of effects during planning is reflected in the steps of JOPP as a way to
clarify the relationship between objectives and tasks and help the JFC and staff determine
conditions for achieving objectives. Commanders and staffs can use commander’s intent, a
systems perspective of the operational environment, and an understanding of desired and undesired
effects to coordinate and promote unified action with multinational and other agency partners.

c. The CCDR plans joint operations based on analysis of national strategic objectives and
development of theater strategic objectives supported by measurable strategic and operational
desired effects and assessment indicators (see Figure III-1). At the operational level, a subordinate
JFC develops supporting plans, which can include objectives supported by measurable
operational-level desired effects and assessment indicators. This may increase operational- and
tactical-level understanding of the purpose reflected in the higher-level commander’s mission
and intent. At the same time, commanders consider potential undesired effects and their impact
on the tasks assigned to subordinate commands.

III-12 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

EFFECTS AND COMMAND ECHELONS

Levels of War Guidance

National End State and
Strategic Objectives

Theater End State & Mission

Strategic Objectives
Effects
Tasks

Operational Mission
Objectives
Effects
Tasks

Tactical Mission
Objectives
Tasks

Figure III-1. Effects and Command Echelons

d. Like end state and objective, joint doctrine includes effects as an element of operational
design. Chapter IV, “Operational Art and Design,” discusses operational art and elements of operational
design.

e. The vignette continuation below shows effects that support CDRXCOM’s theater strategic
objectives.

D-40 (121700Z Jan):

The XCOM plans directorate (J-5) reorients the current CAP effort to
focus on the specific situation and the CCDR’s stated objectives. These
will form the basis for detailed mission analysis, collaboration with DOS
and other agencies, and development of supporting effects. The J-5 drafts
a list of desired effects — the conditions that support achievement of the
objectives. The J-5 could add undesired effects to this list if any had been
identified. The J-5 distributes the following list for the staff’s review and
collaboration prior to the next meeting with the CCDR. The J-5 asks the
staff to confirm that these desired effects are nested within the security
cooperation plan and regional GWOT initiatives and that each effect is
achievable and measurable.

III-13
Chapter III

Objective 1: Gray and Green sovereignty is maintained

Effect (E) 1-1: Gray and Green leadership facilitate rapid reception and
deployment of US forces
E 1-2: Regional countries do not oppose US deployment
E 1-3: Red does not attack Gray or Green
E 1-4: If deterrence fails, coalition defeats Red’s attack
E 1-5: Coalition restores integrity of Gray’s and Green’s borders

Objective 2: Regional terrorism is reduced

E 2-1: Country Red’s ceases terrorist activities

E 2-2: Regional transnational terrorist networks are disrupted
E 2-3: Regional countries expand their antiterrorism and
counterterrorism training, capabilities, and operations

Objective 3: Regional security and stability are restored

E 3-1: Red is incapable of cross-border offensive military operations

E 3-2: Red participates in diplomatic engagement with Gray and Green
E 3-3: Regional countries support actions to oppose Red aggression
E 3-4: Regional countries welcome US intervention

Understanding the behavior of systems in the operational environment

supports the use of effects in planning. In the previous vignette, effects E
1-1 through E 1-5 represent conditions for achieving the CCDR’s objective
1, which in turn relates to the President’s second objective. Effect E 1-3
also is a statement about the behavior of Red’s military system, while effect
E 2-3 relates to the behavior of other regional countries’ military, law
enforcement, and political systems in response to regional terrorism. See
Chapter IV for more information on a systems approach to understanding
the operational environment.

f. During COA and CONOPS development, understanding desired and undesired effects
can help the JFC and staff refine their mission statement and the joint force components’ tasks.
For example, the JFC could task the joint force land component commander (JFLCC) to help
train regional countries’ security forces to conduct independent counterterrorism operations.
This task links back to the CCDR’s second objective and its supporting effects. Likewise, the
JFLCC and other joint force components could be assigned tasks to mitigate or avoid undesired
effects.

Objectives prescribe friendly goals.

Effects describe system behavior in the operational environment —

desired effects are the conditions related to achieving objectives.

Tasks direct friendly action.

III-14 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

g. Although joint doctrine does not prescribe a specific convention for writing a desired effect
statement, there are four primary considerations. First, each desired effect should link directly to
one or more objectives; next, the effect should be measurable; third, the statement should not specify
ways and means for accomplishment; finally, the effect should be distinguishable from the objective it
supports as a condition for success, not as another objective or a task. The same considerations apply
to writing an undesired effect statement.

h. While strategic and operational desired effects focus on larger aspects of various systems,
tactical-level desired effects typically are associated with direct results of offensive and defensive
tactical actions, often involving weapons employment. At the tactical level, a direct effect is
the proximate, first-order consequence of an action — for example, the destruction of a target by
precision-guided munitions or restoration of electrical power by military engineers — which
usually is immediate and easily recognizable. Direct effects at this level are most evident against
structural systems. Tactical actions also can result in indirect effects — delayed and/or
displaced consequences associated with the action that caused the direct effect. Indirect
effects often are less observable or recognizable than direct effects, particularly when they involve
changes in an adversary’s behavior. However, an indirect effect often is the one desired, such as
delaying an adversary in crossing a river (indirect effect displaced in time) by destroying a
bridge (direct effect).

i. The proximate cause of effects in interactively complex situations can be difficult to

predict. While desired tactical-level effects in combat operations typically relate to the military
system, operational-level and strategic effects often pertain to other systems in the operational
environment. Even direct effects in these systems can be more difficult to create, predict, and
measure, particularly when they relate to moral and cognitive issues (such as religion and the
“mind of the adversary” respectively). Indirect effects in these systems often are difficult to
foresee. Where there is sufficient intelligence available to reliably predict the direct effects,
some of the commander’s objectives can also be achieved indirectly. Some military objectives
can be achieved by influencing political, economic, social, and other systems in the operational
environment. However, indirect effects often can be unintended and undesired if there are
gaps in our understanding of the operational environment. Destruction of the bridge in the
previous example could also result in the unintended disruption of electrical power and telephone
communications to a nearby community if we were unaware that these utilities were attached to
the bridge. This could cause hardship in that community and erode any popular support that
might have existed prior to the event. Commanders and planners must appreciate that
unpredictable third-party actions, unintended consequences of friendly operations, subordinate
initiative and creativity, and the fog and friction of conflict will contribute to an uncertain
operational environment.

j. When the commander and staff identify undesired effects, they must consider these in
COA development. The commander’s operational limitations can be adjusted to prevent the
undesired effect. In the earlier bridge example, the operational limitations could include the
restraint, “Do not destroy bridges A, B, and C north of G-town,” assuming this restraint does not
jeopardize mission accomplishment. See paragraph 11 for a discussion of operational limitations.

III-15
Chapter III

k. The use of effects in planning can help commanders and staff determine the tasks required to
achieve objectives and use other elements of operational design more effectively by clarifying the
relationships between COGs, lines of operations (LOOs), decisive points, and termination criteria.
Once a systems perspective of the operational environment has been developed (and appropriate links
and nodes have been identified), the linkage and relationship between COGs, LOOs, and decisive
points can become more obvious. This linkage allows for efficient use of desired effects in planning. See
Chapter IV, “Operational Art and Design,” for additional information on elements of operational design.
The JFC and planners continue to develop and refine desired effects throughout JOPP planning steps.
Monitoring progress toward attaining desired effects and avoiding undesired effects continues throughout
execution.

9. Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment

a. Joint intelligence preparation of the operational environment (JIPOE) is the analytical process to
produce intelligence assessments, estimates, and other intelligence products. The primary purpose of
JIPOE is to support the JFC’s decisionmaking and planning by identifying, assessing, and estimating the
enemy’s COG(s), critical factors, capabilities, limitations, intentions, and COAs that are most likely to
be encountered based on the situation. Using the JIPOE process, the joint force intelligence directorate
(J-2) manages the analysis and development of products that provide a systems understanding of the
increasingly complex and interconnected operational environment — the composite of the conditions,
circumstances, and influences that affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the
commander.

b. Although JIPOE support to decisionmaking is both dynamic and continuous, it must also be
“front loaded” in the sense that the majority of analysis must be completed early enough to be factored
into the commander’s decision-making effort. JIPOE generally occurs in parallel to mission analysis,
and supports mission analysis by enabling the commander and staff to visualize the full extent of the
operational environment, to distinguish the known from the unknown, and to establish working assumptions
regarding how adversary and friendly forces will interact within the operational environment. JIPOE
also assists commanders in formulating their planning guidance by identifying significant adversary
capabilities and by pointing out critical operational environment factors, such as weather and terrain; the
locations of key geography; environmental and health hazards; attitudes of indigenous populations; and
potential land, air, and sea avenues of approach. As planning continues, analysts refine their assessment
of the adversary’s COGs, potential COAs, and other factors.

c. The operational environment encompasses the air, land, sea, space, and associated
adversary, friendly, and neutral systems (political, military, economic, social, informational,
infrastructure, legal, and others), which are relevant to a specific joint operation. Understanding
this environment has always included a perspective broader than just the adversary’s military
forces and other combat capabilities within the traditional battlespace. However, current and
future strategic and operational requirements and types of operations can benefit by a more
comprehensive view of all systems in this environment relevant to the mission and operation at
hand.

III-16 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

d. A system is a functionally related group of elements forming a complex whole. A systems

understanding of the operational environment considers more than just an adversary’s military
capabilities, order of battle, and tactics. Instead, it strives to provide a perspective of interrelated
systems that comprise the operational environment, relevant to a specific joint operation (see
Figure III-2). Based on understanding strategic objectives and the joint force’s mission, the joint force
staff analyzes relevant systems in the operational environment. A variety of factors, including planning
time available, will affect the fidelity of this analysis. Understanding these systems, their interaction with
each other, and how system relationships will change over time will increase the JFC’s knowledge of
how individual actions on one element of a system can affect other interrelated system components.

e. Among other benefits, a systems perspective helps intelligence analysts identify potential
sources from which to gain indications and warning. Although this description of the operational
environment is not, itself, an element of operational design, it supports most design elements.
For example, this perspective helps analysts with COG analysis and planners with operational
design by identifying nodes in each system, the links (relationships) between the nodes, critical
factors, and potential decisive points. This understanding facilitates the identification and use of
decisive points, lines of operations, and other design elements, and allows commanders and
staffs to consider a broader set of options to focus limited resources, create desired effects, and achieve
objectives.

THE INTERCONNECTED OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Information

Infrastructure
Social
Military

Node
Link

Economic
Political

Figure III-2. The Interconnected Operational Environment

III-17
Chapter III

f. The systems perspective is not intended to be a “systems engineering” approach to the

conduct of military operations. While some systems (such as infrastructure) are relatively static,
many systems in the operational environment are inherently complex and dynamic. Although the systems
approach is helpful in understanding the complex nature and composition of a given system or subsystem,
this approach cannot account for all variables. Most systems can often exhibit unpredictable, surprising,
and uncontrollable behaviors. Rather than being an engineered solution, a military operation evolves as
the joint force adapts responsively to systems that also are adapting. This is why the application of
operational art emphasizes the importance of the creative imagination, judgment, experience, and skill of
commanders and staff.

g. System nodes are the tangible elements within a system that can be “targeted” for action,
such as people, materiel, and facilities. Links are the behavioral or functional relationships
between nodes, such as the command or supervisory arrangement that connects a superior to a
subordinate; the relationship of a vehicle to a fuel source; and the ideology that connects a
propagandist to a group of terrorists. Links establish the interconnectivity between nodes that
allows them to function as a system — to behave in a specific way (accomplish a task or perform
a function). Thus, the purpose in taking action against specific nodes is often to destroy, interrupt,
or otherwise affect the relationship between them and other nodes, which ultimately influences
the system as a whole.

KEY TERMS

system — A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of

regularly interacting or interdependent elements; that group of elements
forming a unified whole.

node — An element of a system that represents a person, place, or thing.

key node — A node that is critical to the functioning of a system.

link — An element of a system that represents a behavioral, physical, or

functional relationship between nodes.

h. Analysts describe systems with sufficient detail to identify potential key nodes. These
are nodes that are critical to the functioning of their systems. Some may become decisive points
for military operations since, when acted upon, they could allow the JFC to gain a marked
advantage over the adversary or otherwise to contribute materially to achieving success. Key
nodes often are linked to, or resident in, multiple systems. Since each adversary system
(infrastructure, social, etc.) is composed of nodes and links, the capabilities of US instruments of
national power can be employed against selected key nodes to create operational and strategic
effects.

i. A systems perspective can support the concept of achieving unified action in any operation
by providing the JFC and staff with a common frame of reference for planning with agencies
that represent other instruments of national power. This systems view can facilitate the JFC’s

III-18 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

collaboration with counterparts from other agencies and organizations to determine and coordinate
necessary actions that are beyond the JFC’s command authority. A full understanding of the
operational environment typically will require cross-functional participation by other joint force
staff elements and collaboration with various intelligence organizations, USG agencies, and
nongovernmental centers of excellence. The JFC must consider the best way to manage this
cross-functional effort to develop and maintain a comprehensive understanding of the operational
environment.

For more information on JIPOE, refer to JP 2-01.3, Intelligence Preparation of the Operational
Environment, for details.

SECTION C. THE JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PROCESS STEPS

10. The Joint Operation Planning Process

a. JOPP underpins planning at all levels and for missions across the full range of
military operations. It applies to both supported and supporting JFCs and to joint force
component commands when the components participate in joint planning. This process is designed
to facilitate interaction between the commander, staff, and subordinate headquarters throughout
planning. JOPP helps commanders and their staffs organize their planning activities, share a
common understanding of the mission and commander’s intent, and develop effective plans and
orders.

b. This planning process applies to contingency planning and CAP within the context of
the responsibilities specified by the CJCSM 3122 series (JOPES). JOPP also is used by joint
organizations that have no specific JOPES responsibilities. Furthermore, JOPP supports planning
throughout the course of an operation after the CJCS, at the direction of the President or SecDef,
issues the EXORD. In common application, JOPP proceeds according to planning milestones
and other requirements established by commanders at various levels. However, the CJCSM
3122 series specifies JPEC milestones, deliverables, and interaction points for contingency and
crisis action plans developed per the formal JOPES process. Figure III-3 shows the primary
steps of JOPP as discussed in the remainder of this section.

11. Planning Initiation

a. JOPP begins when an appropriate authority recognizes a potential for military capability to be
employed in response to a potential or actual crisis. At the strategic level, that authority — the
President, SecDef, or CJCS — initiates planning by deciding to develop military options. The
JSCP, CPG, and related strategic guidance statements (when applicable) serve as the primary guidance
to begin contingency planning. However, CCDRs and other commanders may initiate planning on their
own authority when they identify a planning requirement not directed by higher authority. The CJCS
may also issue a WARNORD. Military options normally are developed in combination with other
nonmilitary options so that the President can respond with all the appropriate instruments of national
power. Below the strategic level, crises are reported to the NMCC in an operational report. This
initiates analysis at the strategic level and may result in the President, SecDef, or CJCS initiating military

III-19
Chapter III

THE JOINT OPERATION PLANNING PROCESS

Step 1:
Initiation

Step 2:
Mission Analysis

Step 3:
Course of Action (COA) Development

Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming

Step 5:
COA Comparison

Step 6:
COA Approval

Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

Figure III-3. The Joint Operation Planning Process

planning. Whether or not planning begins as described here, the CCDR may act within approved ROE
in an immediate crisis.

b. Particularly in CAP, the JFC and staff will perform an assessment of the initiating directive to
determine time available until mission execution, the current status of intelligence products and staff
estimates, and other factors relevant to the specific planning situation. The JFC typically will provide
initial guidance (not to be confused with the JFC’s planning guidance that is a product of mission
analysis), which could specify time constraints, outline initial coordination requirements, authorize movement
of key capabilities within the JFC’s authority, and direct other actions as necessary.

c. Planning is continuous once execution begins. However, planning initiation during

execution is still relevant when there are significant changes to the current mission or planning
assumptions or the commander receives a mission for follow-on operations. The plans directorate
(J-5) of the JFC’s staff typically focuses on planning sequels and potential future operations,
while the operations directorate (J-3) focuses on branch planning and current operations.

12. Mission Analysis

a. The joint force’s mission is the task or set of tasks, together with the purpose, that
clearly indicates the action to be taken and the reason for doing so. The primary purpose of

III-20 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

mission analysis is to understand the problem and purpose of the operation and issue appropriate
guidance to drive the rest of the planning process. The JFC and staff can accomplish mission
analysis through a number of logical steps, such as those shown in Figure III-4. Although some steps

MISSION ANALYSIS KEY STEPS

Determine known facts, current status, or conditions
Analyze the higher commander’s mission and intent
Determine own specified, implied, and essential tasks
Determine operational limitations
Develop assumptions
Determine own military end state, objectives, and initial effects
Determine own & enemy’s center(s) of gravity and critical factors
Determine initial commander’s critical information requirements
Review strategic communication guidance (when applicable)
Conduct initial force structure analysis
Conduct initial risk assessment
Develop mission statement
Develop mission analysis brief
Prepare initial staff estimates
Publish commander’s planning guidance and initial intent
Steps not necessarily sequential

Figure III-4. Mission Analysis Key Steps

occur before others, mission analysis typically involves substantial parallel processing of information by
the commander and staff, particularly in a CAP situation.

b. A primary consideration for a supported CCDR during mission analysis is the national strategic
end state —the broadly expressed political, military, economic, social, informational, and other conditions
that should exist after the conclusion of a campaign or operation. At some point, the CCDR also must
consider multinational objectives associated with coalition or alliance operations.

(1) The supported CCDR typically will specify a military end state. While it will
mirror many of the objectives of the national strategic end state, the theater strategic end state
may contain other supporting objectives and conditions. This end state normally will represent
a point in time and/or circumstance beyond which the President does not require the military
instrument of national power as the primary means to achieve the remaining national strategic
objectives.

III-21
Chapter III

(2) JFCs include a discussion of the national strategic end state in their planning guidance.
This ensures that joint forces understand what the President wants the situation to look like at the
conclusion of US involvement. The CCDR and subordinate JFCs typically include the military end state
in their commander’s intent statement.

c. In response to the initiating planning directive, the commander and staff analyze the
assigned mission to accomplish the following:

(1) Assess the scope of the assigned mission, end state, objectives, and other guidance
from the next higher commander. Determine whether the mission can be accomplished in a
single operation, or will likely require a campaign due to its complexity and likely duration and
intensity.

(2) Determine military objective(s) and the specified, implied, and essential tasks.
Develop a revised mission statement.

(3) Determine initial desired and undesired effects and key assumptions.

KEY TERMS

specified task — A task that is specifically assigned to an organization by

its higher headquarters.

implied task — A task derived during mission analysis that an organization

must perform or prepare to perform to accomplish a specified task or the
mission, but which is not stated in the higher headquarters order.

essential task — A specified or implied task that an organization must

perform to accomplish the mission. An essential task is typically included
in the mission statement.

(4) Analyze the operational environment with respect to mission accomplishment.

This analysis should result in understanding operational limitations and other considerations
that affect execution and that bear on operational and strategic decisions. A comprehensive
systems perspective considers the interaction between the individual elements of a system and
across multiple systems (political, military, economic, social, informational, infrastructure, and
others). This systems perspective is an important consideration as the staff prepares its functional
estimates such as logistic, transportation and movement, and force protection. See Section D of
this chapter for more information on the estimate process. See Chapter IV, “Operational Art and
Design,” for more information on developing a systems perspective of the operational
environment.

(5) In a crisis action situation, determine time available from mission receipt until
probable receipt of a deployment or execute order. Planning at all levels is complex, so the JFC
must allocate a sufficient part of available time for subordinate and supporting commands to conduct

III-22 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

their planning and ensure timely transmission of accurate planning information and instructions to those
organizations. While some steps are necessarily sequential, the joint force headquarters and components’
planning activities will be largely parallel, with subordinates involved in collaborative planning with their
higher headquarters.

d. The primary inputs to mission analysis are the higher headquarters planning directive,
other strategic guidance, the JIPOE, and initial staff estimates (see Figure III-5). The primary products
of mission analysis are a restated mission statement and the JFC’s initial intent statement, CCIRs,
and planning guidance.

MISSION ANALYSIS

Key Inputs Key Outputs

Higher Restated Mission

Headquarters Statement
Planning Directive
Joint Force
Comander’s
Other Strategic (JFC) Initial
Guidance Mission Intent Statement
Analysis JFC’s
Initial Staff
Estimates Planning
Guidance

Joint Initial
Intelligence Commander’s
Preparation of Critical
the Operational Information
Environment Requirements

Figure III-5. Mission Analysis

(1) Restated Mission Statement. The mission statement should be a short sentence or
paragraph that describes the organization’s essential task (or tasks) and purpose — a clear statement
of the action to be taken and the reason for doing so. The mission statement contains the elements of
who, what, when, where, and why, but seldom specifies how. It forms the basis for planning and is
included in the planning guidance, the planning directive, staff estimates, the commander’s estimate, the
CONOPS, and the completed plan.

III-23
Chapter III

D-38 (140700Z Jan):

The XCOM chief of staff convenes the staff to receive the commander’s
guidance and provide initial staff estimates. Component commanders
participate in person or by VTC. With minor modifications, the CCDR
approves the list of operational limitations for immediate separate
transmission to component and supporting command headquarters. The
intelligence directorate (J-2) briefs the JIPOE, which includes an initial
systems analysis of the operational environment. The J-5 briefs the
proposed effects to support the operation’s objectives. The CCDR
approves these, with the caveat that they may change as the operation
progresses. The J-3 acknowledges receipt of the CJCS deployment order
and transmission of the warning order to subordinate and supporting
commands. The J-5 then presents the following draft mission statement,
which the CCDR approves:

MISSION: USXCOM deploys immediately to JOA Blue to deter Red forces

from attacking Country Gray. XCOM defends Country Gray and Country
Green from Red attack beginning D-Day, H-Hour; defeats and ejects Red
forces; degrades or eliminates terrorist activities originating in Country Red;
and provides post-conflict support to stabilization and reconstruction
operations in Red, Gray, and Green as directed in order to protect the
sovereignty of Gray and Green and restore stability in the region. On order,
XCOM secures Country Red to enable installation of new government and
military leaders.

(2) Commander’s Intent

(a) The commander’s intent is a clear and concise expression of the purpose of
the operation and the military end state. It provides focus to the staff and helps subordinate and
supporting commanders take actions to achieve the military end state without further orders,
even when operations do not unfold as planned. It also includes where the commander will
accept risk during the operation.

(b) The initial intent statement normally contains the purpose and military end
state as the impetus for the planning process; it could be stated verbally when time is short. The
commander refines the intent statement as planning progresses. The commander’s approved
intent is written in paragraph 3, “Execution,” as part of the operation plan or order.

(c) A well-devised intent statement enables subordinates to decide how to act

when facing unforeseen opportunities and threats, and in situations where the CONOPS no
longer applies. This statement deals primarily with the military conditions that lead to mission
accomplishment, so the commander may highlight selected objectives and desired and undesired
effects. The statement also can discuss other instruments of national power as they relate to the
JFC’s mission and the potential impact of military operations on these instruments. The
commander’s intent may include the commander’s assessment of the adversary commander’s intent
and an assessment of where and how much risk is acceptable during the operation.

III-24 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

D-38 (140830Z Jan):

Following approval of the mission statement, CDRXCOM issues his initial

intent statement. He will refine the intent below, which the J-5 will include
in the final operation order (OPORD).

The purpose of this operation is to deter Country Red from attacking

Country Gray and, if Red attacks, to defend Gray and Green and defeat
Red’s military. This will help restore stability in the region, particularly if
Red’s current leader is not in power at the conclusion of operations. If Red
attacks, the military end state includes a successful defense of Gray and
Green; a Red armed force capable only of homeland defense against
regional threats; degradation of terrorist activities and capabilities; and
sufficient stability in Red that most US forces can disengage and redeploy
at the earliest opportunity. We do not want our presence to be a continuous
cause of unrest for the populace. New Red political and military leadership
would benefit the region, and I want to plan for our support to civil authorities
should that possibility become reality.

If Red attacks, the military outcome should not be in question. Our

national intelligence says that Red does not possess weapons of mass
destruction capabilities; however there are several industries that use large
quantities toxic industrial materials that terrorist may have plans to use.
Regional country leaders who are friendly to the current Red leader will
not be inclined to interfere militarily according to the latest strategic
intelligence estimate. Nonetheless, we must watch them closely for any
indications.

Stabilizing the situation and enabling civil authority are key to the end
state. The military is only one piece of this equation. We’ll be in support of
the Department of State for the most part during those phases, and I want
to ensure we make it as easy as possible for all other agencies to do their
jobs and achieve the President’s objectives. It is important that the regional
nations do not oppose US operations in the region and that they understand
the possibility of future aggression by Red and will be able to react to Red
accordingly. Continue your routine collaboration with the Joint Interagency
Coordination Group so that we are not surprised as agency teams arrive.
Also, component commanders ensure you personally review the strategic
communication annex when you receive the OPORD. There are some key
SC themes that are important to US post-conflict goals for this region. We
need to speak with one voice on these when we address the press and
others.

Questions?

(3) JFC’s Planning Guidance. To ensure focused and effective planning, the commander
and staff develop and communicate planning guidance that will accompany tentative COAs to subordinate

III-25
Chapter III

and supporting commanders for their estimates of feasibility and supportability. As a minimum, the
planning guidance should include the mission statement; assumptions; operational limitations; a discussion
of the national strategic end state; termination criteria; military objectives; and the JFC’s initial thoughts
on desired and undesired effects. The planning guidance should also address the role of agencies and
multinational partners in the pending operation and any related special considerations as required.

(a) The staff assembles both facts and assumptions to support the planning
process and planning guidance.

1. A fact is a statement of information known to be true (such as verified

locations of friendly and adversary force dispositions), while an assumption provides a
supposition about the current situation or future course of events, assumed to be true in the
absence of facts. Assumptions are necessary to enable the commander to complete an estimate
of the situation and select the COA. Assumptions that address gaps in knowledge are critical for
the planning process to continue. For planning purposes, subordinate commanders treat
assumptions made by higher headquarters as true in the absence of proof to the contrary. However,
they should challenge those assumptions if they appear unrealistic. Assumptions must be
continually reviewed to ensure validity.

2. Commanders and their staff should anticipate changes to the plan that
may become necessary should an assumption prove to be incorrect. Because of their influence
on planning, the fewest possible assumptions are included in a plan. A valid assumption has
three characteristics: it is logical, realistic, and essential for the planning to continue.
Assumptions are made for both friendly and adversary situations. Commanders and staffs should
never assume away adversary capabilities or assume that unrealistic friendly capabilities would
be available.

3. OPLANs developed during contingency planning may contain assumptions

that cannot be resolved until a potential crisis develops. In CAP, however, assumptions should
be replaced with facts as soon as possible. The staff accomplishes this by identifying the
information needed to convert assumptions to facts and submitting an information request to an
appropriate agency as an information requirement. If the commander needs the information to
make a key decision, the information requirement can be designated a CCIR. Although there
may be exceptions, the staff should strive to resolve all assumptions before issuing the
OPORD.

(b) Operational limitations are actions required or prohibited by higher authority

and other restrictions that limit the commander’s freedom of action, such as diplomatic agreements,
political and economic conditions in affected countries, and host nation issues. A constraint is
a requirement placed on the command by a higher command that dictates an action, thus
restricting freedom of action. For example, General Eisenhower was required to liberate Paris
instead of bypassing it during the 1944 campaign in France. A restraint is a requirement placed
on the command by a higher command that prohibits an action, thus restricting freedom of
action. For example, General MacArthur was prohibited from striking Chinese targets north of
the Yalu River during the Korean War. Many operational limitations are commonly expressed

III-26 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

as ROE. Operational limitations may restrict or bind COA selection or may even impede implementation
of the chosen COA. Commanders must examine the operational limitations imposed on them, understand
their impacts, and develop options that minimize these impacts in order to promote maximum freedom
of action during execution.

(c) Mission success criteria describe the standards for determining mission
accomplishment. The JFC includes these criteria in the planning guidance so that the joint force
staff and components better understand what constitutes mission success. These criteria are
related to the termination criteria discussed in Section B of this chapter. Termination criteria
typically apply to the end of a joint operation and disengagement by joint forces. This often
signals the end of the use of the military instrument of national power. Mission success criteria,
on the other hand, can apply to any joint operation, subordinate phase, and joint force component
operation. These criteria help the JFC determine if and when to move to the next major operation
or phase.

1. The initial set of these criteria determined during mission analysis becomes
the basis for assessment (see Section E, paragraph 15 for details). Assessment uses measures
of performance (MOPs) and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) to indicate progress toward
achieving objectives. If the mission is unambiguous and limited in time and scope, mission
success criteria could be readily identifiable and linked directly to the mission statement. For
example, if the JFC’s mission is to evacuate all US personnel from the US embassy in Grayland,
then mission analysis could identify two primary success criteria: (1) all US personnel are
evacuated and (2) established ROE are not violated. However, more complex operations may
require MOEs and MOPs for each task, effect, and phase of the operation. For example, if the
JFC’s specified tasks are to ensure friendly transit through the Straits of Gray, eject Redland
forces from Grayland, and restore stability along the Grayland-Redland border, then mission
analysis should indicate many potential success criteria — measured by MOEs and MOPs —
some for each desired effect and task.

2. Measuring the status of tasks, effects, and objectives becomes the basis
for reports to senior commanders and civilian leaders on the progress of the operation. The
CCDR can then advise the President and SecDef accordingly and adjust operations as required.
Whether in a supported or supporting role, JFCs at all levels must develop their mission success
criteria with a clear understanding of termination criteria established by the CJCS and SecDef as
discussed in Section B of this chapter.

(4) Commander’s Critical Information Requirements. CCIRs comprise information

requirements identified by the commander as being critical to timely information management and the
decision-making process that affect successful mission accomplishment. CCIRs result from an analysis
of information requirements in the context of the mission and the commander’s intent. The two key
subcomponents are critical friendly force information and priority intelligence requirements.
The information needed to verify or refute a planning assumption is an example of a CCIR. CCIRs are
not static. Commanders refine and update them throughout an operation based on actionable information
they need for decisionmaking. They are situation-dependent, focused on predictable events or activities,
time-sensitive, and always established by an order or plan.

III-27
Chapter III

13. Course of Action Development

a. A COA consists of the following information: what type of military action will occur;
why the action is required (purpose); who will take the action; when the action will begin; where
the action will occur; and how the action will occur (method of employment of forces). The staff
converts the approved COA into a CONOPS. COA determination consists of four primary
activities: COA development, analysis and wargaming, comparison, and approval.

b. To develop COAs, the staff must focus on key information necessary to make decisions,
using the data from mission analysis. The staff develops COAs to provide options to the
commander. All COAs selected for analysis should be valid. A valid COA is one that is adequate,
feasible, acceptable, distinguishable, and complete (see Figure III-6). The staff should reject
potential COAs that do not meet all five criteria. A good COA accomplishes the mission within
the commander’s guidance and positions the joint force for future operations and provides
flexibility to meet unforeseen events during execution. It also gives components the maximum
latitude for initiative.

c. Embedded within COA development (see Figure III-7) is the application of operational art.
Planners can develop different COAs for using joint force capabilities (operational fires and maneuver,
deception, joint force organization, etc.) by varying the combinations of the elements of operational
design (such as phasing, line of operations, and so forth). During COA development, the commander

COURSE OF ACTION CHARACTERISTICS

A Valid Course of Action Is--

Adequate — Can accomplish the mission within the commander’s guidance.

Feasible — Can accomplish the mission within the established time, space, and
resource limitations.

Acceptable — Must balance cost and risk with the advantage gained.

Distinguishable — Must be sufficiently different from the other courses of action.

Complete — Must incorporate:

• objectives, effects, and tasks to be performed
• major forces required
• concepts for deployment, employment, and sustainment
• time estimates for achieving objectives
• military end state and mission success criteria

Figure III-6. Course of Action Characteristics

III-28 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

COURSE OF ACTION DEVELOPMENT

Key Inputs Key Outputs

Joint Force
Commander’s Revised
(JFC) Planning Staff
Guidance Estimates

JFC’s Initial Course of

Intent Action (COA) COA
Alternatives
Development
Initial Staff including
Estimates • Tentative task
organization
Joint • Deployment
Intelligence concept
Preparation of • Sustainment
the Operational concept
Environment

Figure III-7. Course of Action Development

and staff continue risk assessment, focusing on identifying and assessing hazards to mission accomplishment.
The staff also continues to revise intelligence products. The adversary’s most likely and most dangerous
potential COAs are considered at this point and throughout COA development. Generally, at the
theater level, each COA will constitute a theater strategic or operational concept and should outline the
following:

(1) Major strategic and operational tasks to be accomplished in the order in which they are
to be accomplished.

(2) Capabilities required.

(3) Task organization and related communications systems support concept.

(4) Sustainment concept.

(5) Deployment concept.

(6) Estimate of time required to reach mission success criteria or termination criteria.

(7) Concept for maintaining a theater reserve.

III-29
Chapter III

14. Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming

See Figure III-8.

a. The commander and staff analyze each tentative COA separately according to the
commander’s guidance. COA analysis identifies advantages and disadvantages of each proposed
friendly COA. Analysis of the proposed COAs should reveal a number of factors including:

(1) Potential decision points.

(2) Task organization adjustment.

(3) Data for use in a synchronization matrix or other decision-making tool.

(4) Identification of plan branches and sequels.

(5) Identification of high-value targets.

(6) A risk assessment.

COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS AND WARGAMING

Key Inputs Key Outputs

Potential
Revised Decision Points
Staff
Estimates
Governing
Course of Factors
COA Action (COA)
Alternatives Analysis and Potential
including Wargaming Branches &
• Tentative task Sequels
organization
• Deployment Refined COAs
concept
• Sustainment
concept Revised Staff
Estimates

Figure III-8. Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming

III-30 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

(7) COA advantages and disadvantages.

(8) Recommended CCIRs.

b. Wargaming provides a means for the commander and participants to analyze a tentative
COA, improve their understanding of the operational environment, and obtain insights that
otherwise might not have occurred. An objective, comprehensive analysis of tentative COAs is
difficult even without time constraints. Based upon time available, the commander should
wargame each tentative COA against the most probable and the most dangerous adversary COAs
(or most difficult objectives in noncombat operations) identified through the JIPOE process.

(1) Wargaming is a conscious attempt to visualize the flow of the operation, given
joint force strengths and dispositions, adversary capabilities and possible COAs, the OA, and
other aspects of the operational environment. Each critical event within a proposed COA should
be wargamed based upon time available using the action, reaction, counteraction method of
friendly and/or opposition force interaction. The basic wargaming method (modified to fit the
specific mission and environment) can apply to noncombat as well as combat operations.

(2) Wargaming stimulates thought about the operation so the staff will obtain ideas
and insights that otherwise might not have occurred. This process highlights tasks that appear to
be particularly important to the operation and provides a degree of familiarity with operational-
level possibilities that might otherwise be difficult to achieve.

(3) The wargaming process can be as simple as a detailed narrative effort which
describes the action, probable reaction, counteraction, assets, and time used. A more
comprehensive version is the “sketch-note” technique, which adds operational sketches and
notes to the narrative process in order to gain a clearer picture. The most sophisticated form of
wargaming is modern, computer-aided modeling and simulation. Figure III-9 provides a sample
list of possible wargaming steps.

(4) A set of governing factors is an important output from COA analysis and wargaming.
Governing factors are those aspects of the situation (or externally imposed factors) that the
commander deems critical to mission accomplishment. Potential governing factors include
elements of the commander’s intent and planning guidance; wargaming results; selected principles
of war; external constraints or any criteria the commander desires.

(5) However, the most important element of wargaming is not the tool used, but the people
who participate. Staff members who participate in wargaming should be the individuals who were
deeply involved in the development of COAs. A robust cell that can aggressively pursue the
adversary’s point of view when considering adversary counteraction is essential. This “red
cell” role-plays the adversary commander and staff. If formed, the cell would work for the joint force
headquarters J-2 and typically would reside in either the joint intelligence support element or the joint
planning group (JPG). The red cell develops critical decision points relative to the friendly COAs,
projects adversary reactions to friendly actions, and estimates adversary losses for each friendly COA.
By trying to win the wargame for the adversary, the red cell helps the staff fully address friendly responses

III-31
Chapter III

SAMPLE WARGAMING STEPS

1. Prepare for Wargame 2. Conduct wargame and assess

- Gather tools results
- List and review friendly forces - Purpose of wargame (identify
- List and review enemy forces gaps, visualization, etc.)

- List known critical events - Basic methodology (e.g. action,

- Determine participants
- Determine enemy course of
action (COA) to oppose
- Select wargaming method
-- Manual or computer-
assisted
- Select a method to record &
display wargaming results
-- Narrative
-- Sketch & note
-- Wargame worksheets
-- Synchronization matrix
reaction, counteraction)
- Record results
3. Output of wargaming:
- Results of the wargame brief
-- Potential decision points
-- Governing Factors
-- Potential branches &
sequels
- Revised staff estimates
- Refined COAs
- Feedback through the COA
decision brief

Figure III-9. Sample Wargaming Steps

for each adversary COA. If subordinate functional and Service components establish similar cells that
mirror their adversary counterparts, this red cell network can collaborate to effectively wargame the
adversary’s full range of capabilities against the joint force. In addition to supporting the wargaming
effort during planning, the red cell can continue to view friendly joint operations from the adversary’s
perspective during execution. The red cell process can be applied to noncombat operations to help
determine unforeseen or most likely obstacles as well as the potential results of planned operations.

(6) A synchronization matrix is a decision-making tool and a method of recording

the results of wargaming. Key results that should be recorded include decision points, potential
governing factors, CCIRs, COA adjustments, branches, and sequels. Using a synchronization
matrix helps the staff visually synchronize the COA across time and space in relation to the
adversary’s possible COAs. The wargame and synchronization matrix efforts will be particularly
useful in identifying cross-component support resource requirements.

15. Course of Action Comparison

a. COA comparison is an objective process whereby COAs are considered independently of

each other and evaluated/compared against a set of criteria that are established by the staff and commander.
The goal is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of COAs so that a COA with the highest probability

III-32 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

of success can be selected or developed. The commander and staff develop and evaluate a list of
important criteria, or governing factors, consider each COA’s advantages and disadvantages, identify
actions to overcome disadvantages, make final tests for feasibility and acceptability and weigh the
relative merits of each.

b. Figure III-10 depicts inputs and outputs for COA comparison. Using the governing
factors, the staff then outlines each COA, highlighting advantages and disadvantages. Comparing
the strengths and weaknesses of the COAs identifies their advantages and disadvantages relative
to each other. The staff may use any technique that facilitates reaching consensus on the best
recommendation, so that the commander can make a decision in choosing the best COA.

(1) The staff evaluates COAs using governing factors to identify the one with the
highest probability of success. The selected COA should also:

(a) Mitigate risk to the force and mission to an acceptable level.

(b) Place the force in the best posture for future operations.

(c) Provide maximum latitude for initiative by subordinates.

COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON

Key Inputs Key Outputs

Advantages & Evaluated

Disadvantages COAs

Wargaming Recommended
Course of COA
Results Action (COA)
Comparison
COA
Governing Selection
Factors Rationale

Revised Staff Revised Staff

Estimates Estimates

Figure III-10. Course of Action Comparison

III-33
Chapter III

(d) Provide the most flexibility to meet unexpected threats and opportunities.

(2) Actual comparison of COAs is critical. Any technique that helps the staff provide
the best recommendation and enables the commander to make the best decision is valid. A
common, proven technique is the decision matrix, which uses governing factors to assess the
effectiveness of each COA. However, a decision matrix alone cannot provide decision solutions.
Its greatest value is in providing a method to compare COAs against criteria that, when met,
produced success.

16. Course of Action Approval

a. The staff determines the best COA to recommend to the commander. Figure III-11
depicts the COA approval inputs and outputs. The staff briefs the commander on the COA
comparison and the analysis and wargaming results, including a review of important supporting
information. This briefing often takes the form of a commander’s estimate (see Section D, this
chapter). This information could include the intent of the next two higher commanders; the
current status of the joint force; the current JIPOE; and assumptions used in COA development.
The commander selects a COA or forms an alternate COA based upon the staff recommendations
and the commander’s personal estimate, experience, and judgment.

b. The nature of a potential contingency could make it difficult to determine a specific end
state until the crisis actually occurs. In these cases, the JFC may choose to present two or more
valid COAs for approval by higher authority. A single COA can then be approved when the
crisis occurs and specific circumstances become clear.

17. Concept of Operations Development

a. Contingency planning will result in plan development, while CAP typically will
lead directly to OPORD development. During plan or order development, the commander
and staff, in collaboration with subordinate and supporting components and organizations, expand
the approved COA into a detailed joint OPLAN or OPORD by first developing an executable
CONOPS — the eventual centerpiece of the operation plan or order.

b. The CONOPS clearly and concisely expresses what the JFC intends to accomplish and
how it will be done using available resources. It describes how the actions of the joint force
components and supporting organizations will be integrated, synchronized, and phased to
accomplish the mission, including potential branches and sequels. The CONOPS:

(1) States the commander’s intent.

(2) Describes the central approach the JFC intends to take to accomplish the mission.

III-34 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

COURSE OF ACTION APPROVAL

Key Inputs Key Outputs

Refined COA
COAs Modifications

JFC’s COA
Staff Course of
Recommendation
Selection
Action (COA)
Approval Commander’s
Joint Force Estimate
Commander’s (if required)
(JFC’s) Personal
Analysis Refined
(Experience & Commander’s
Judgment) Intent

Figure III-11. Course of Action Approval

(3) Provides for the application, sequencing, synchronization, and integration of forces and
capabilities in time, space, and purpose (including those of multinational and interagency organizations as
appropriate).

(4) Describes when, where, and under what conditions the supported commander
intends to give or refuse battle, if required.

(5) Focuses on friendly and adversary COGs and their associated critical vulnerabilities.

(6) Avoids discernible patterns and makes full use of ambiguity and deception.

(7) Provides for controlling the tempo of the operation.

(8) Visualizes the campaign in terms of the forces and functions involved.

(9) Relates the joint force’s objectives and desired effects to those of the next higher command
and other organizations as necessary. This enables assignment of tasks to subordinate and supporting
commanders.

III-35
Chapter III

c. The staff writes (or graphically portrays) the CONOPS in sufficient detail so that subordinate
and supporting commanders understand their mission, tasks, and other requirements and can develop
their supporting plans accordingly. During CONOPS development, the commander determines the
best arrangement of simultaneous and sequential actions and activities to accomplish the assigned mission
consistent with the approved COA. This arrangement of actions dictates the sequencing of forces into
the OA, providing the link between the CONOPS and force planning. The link between the CONOPS
and force planning is preserved and perpetuated through the TPFDD structure. The structure must
ensure unit integrity, force mobility, and force visibility as well as the ability to rapidly transition to branches
or sequels as operational conditions dictate. Planners ensure that the CONOPS, force plan, deployment
plans, and supporting plans provide the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, and are consistent
with the JFC’s intent.

D-36: (161400Z Jan)

(NOTE: This concept of opperations (CONOPS) example focuses on how

the operation should progress based on the joint force commander’s
approval of a course of action (COA). An actual CONOPS would contain
more detail. This CONOPS supports a subsequent vignette on “phasing”
in Chapter IV.)

After considering the staff’s comparison of courses of action and their

recommended COA, the CCDR approves COA 3 for detailed development
as an executable CONOPS. The CCDR subsequently reviews the CONOPS
with the staff and component commanders to ensure a common
understanding.

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS:

XCOM HQ is the joint force HQ for this operation, since a joint task
force (JTF) (COA 2) is insufficient for this mission.

The operation will be conducted in five major phases, with additional

subordinate phases as necessary. The focus of Phase I, Deter, is on
deployment, which is already underway. Countries Gray and Green are
facilitating this for us, and no other key countries in the region are opposing
our entry into the region. The State Department has done a good job with
these countries to help set the conditions for maintaining Gray’s and Green’s
sovereignty, and also is working related desired effects for restoring regional
security and stability (Objective 3). Although the Red leader has spoken
out against our deployment, there are no intelligence indications that he
has changed the posture of his forces or intends to attack within the next
10 days, so we should have sufficient defensive capabilities in place before
we expect Red to attack.

17th Air Force is our primary deterrent capability for the next 48 hours.
12th Fleet’s carrier battle group (CVBG) 80 should arrive in the JOA at
171200Z Jan, and 17th Air Force will become the joint force air component
commander (JFACC) at 180800Z Jan. CVBG 80 will increase our visible

III-36 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

presence in the region, and its air and cruise missile capability will enhance
our deterrent combat capabilities. Deployment of 10th Army forces and IV
Marine expeditionary force (MEF) will begin on Saturday. Two brigades
with protection and logistical capabilities from 10th Army and IV MEF’s
forward-deployed Mrine expeditionary unit should move into defensive
positions in Gray by 242000Z Jan if Red has not attacked by then. 10th Army
assumes responsibilities as joint force land component commander (JFLCC)
and Joint Security Coordinator at 250800Z Jan. SOCX is deploying teams
into the western part of Gray for on-order deployment to eastern Red for
operations that will be covered in a separate briefing. If first three effects
that support Objective 1 are attained when we finish Phase I, we should
have sufficient capabilities in place to defend successfully. Then I believe
it is only a matter of IF, not WHEN, we achieve Objective 1.

The focus in Phase II, Defend and Seize Initiative, is on defense and
setting the conditions for the offense. It is possible, but not likely, that
deterrence will succeed and diplomacy will prevail. In that case, we can
expect to continue deployment to ensure we have sufficient capability in
the JOA, and then continue in a defensive posture until the situation
stabilizes and we are told to redeploy. If deterrence fails, Phase II begins
immediately when Red attacks with whatever capability XCOM has in place
and available. The terrain on the Red-Gray border favors JFLCC’s
defensive operations. JFACC’s priorities will be to maintain air superiority
and provide CAS at the Red-Gray border, degrade Red’s air defenses, and
take out key Red strategic and operational-level command and control (C2)
nodes. The JFLCC’s priority will be to maintain the defense and facilitate
continued RSOI of forces to enable Phase III. 12th Fleet’s priority will be to
maintain maritime superiority and support to JFACC’s air effort.

Key to an early end to this operation once hostilities begin is finding

and destroying the Red leader’s headquarters. The Red leader is the
strategic center of gravity (COG), and Red operations could come to a quick
halt if he and his senior staff are out of the picture. Intelligence sources
indicate that he has moved out of the permanent headquarters in
Capitaltown and is using a small, mobile headquarters that will be difficult
to find. The location of that C2 node is a priority intelligence requirement.

The focus in Phase III, Dominate, will be on offensive action to eject

Red forces from Gray, defeat Red forces, and destroy sufficient Red military
capability so that Red subsequently can only defend its territory against
possible future regional competitors. The main effort in subordinate Phase
III-A will be the JFLCC’s operations against Red’s operational-level COG,
the armored corps in the north. Success in this phase should cause Red’s
military effort to collapse. The supporting effort will be JFLCC’s operations
in the south to secure key lines of communication along the coast. In
subordinate Phase III-B, the main effort will be JFLCC’s operations in the
south along the coast to occupy Capitaltown. Securing the capital will set

III-37
Chapter III

the conditions for reinstating former Country Red leaders if this opportunity
presents itself, one of the national strategic objectives.

In Phase III I want to destroy, not bypass, the Country Red forces we
engage. This is important to the military’s contribution to restoring regional
security and stability, because one of our desired effects in support of that
objective is that Red must be incapable of cross-border offensive military
operations. Intelligence estimates indicate that the Red leader is maintaining
two under-strength mechanized divisions in reserve to protect Capitaltown.
I do not expect him to commit those units, and I think there is a good chance
he will capitulate before we complete Phase III-B if we destroy the armor
corps. If the JFACC also eliminates most of Red’s 45 modern fighter-
bombers, then I believe Red’s remaining forces will have reasonable
defensive capability, but they will not be able to maintain effective cross-
border operations. The desired effect will have been attained.

Regardless of whether or not Country Red changes leadership, Phase III

will set the conditions for the follow-on Stabilize (Phase IV) and Enable
Civil Authority (Phase V) operations. However, The nature of these phases
will differ greatly if the current Red leader remains in place compared to
how we will conduct these phases in support of new leadership in Red.
The J-5 is developing sequels to Phase III, and we’ll reconvene tomorrow to
discuss them. Either way, an important requirement during Phases IV and
V is to identify and take down as much of Country Red’s terrorist capability
as we can in order to set the conditions that Red ceases future terrorist
activities and regional terrorist networks are disrupted.

Questions?

d. If the scope, complexity, and duration of the military action contemplated to accomplish
the assigned mission warrant a campaign, then the staff outlines the series of military operations
and associated objectives in a strategic concept. They develop the CONOPS for the preliminary
part of the campaign in sufficient detail to impart a clear understanding of the commander’s
concept of how the assigned mission will be accomplished.

e. During CONOPS development, the JFC must assimilate many variables under conditions
of uncertainty to determine the essential military conditions, sequence of actions, and application
of capabilities and associated forces to create effects and achieve objectives. JFCs and their
staffs must be continually aware of the higher-level objectives and associated desired and
undesired effects that influence planning at every juncture. If operational objectives are not
linked to strategic objectives, the inherent linkage or “nesting” is broken and eventually tactical
considerations can begin to drive the overall strategy at cross-purposes.

Chapter IV, “Operational Design” contains more information on operational design as it applies
to CONOPS development. CJCSM 3122.01, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Volume
I: (Planning, Policies, and Procedures), provides detailed guidance on CONOPS content and format.

III-38 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

f. The following is an historical vignette from the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf Conflict, which provides
an excellent example of clear commander’s guidance and intent and a general CONOPS for Operation
DESERT STORM.

DESERT STORM

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, in his autobiography, “It Doesn’t Take

a Hero,” recounts the events of November 14, 1990, the day he briefed his
senior commanders on his plan to drive the Iraqi forces from Kuwait during
Desert Storm. After asserting that this would be the most important meeting
of the war, General Schwarzkopf acknowledges the twenty-two generals
who were in attendance, commenting “that no other theater commander in
history had ever been blessed with such an array of talent,” and describes
his battle plan...

“The first thing that we’re going to have to do is, I don’t like to use the
word ‘decapitate,’ so I think I’ll use the word ‘attack,’ leadership, and go
after his command and control. Number two, we’ve got to gain and maintain
air superiority. Number three, we need to cut totally his supply lines. We
also need to destroy his chemical, biological, and nuclear capability. And
finally, all you tankers, listen to this. We need to destroy—not attack, not
damage, not surround—I want you to destroy the Republican Guard. When
you’re done with them, I don’t want them to be an effective fighting force
anymore. I don’t want them to exist as a military organization. For the
benefit of the Vietnam vets—practically the whole room—I emphasized that
‘we’re not going into this with one arm tied behind our backs. We’re not
gonna say we want to be as nice as we possibly can, and if they draw back
across the border that’s fine with us. That’s bullshit! We are going to destroy
the Republican Guard.’ If we were ordered to go on the offensive, we would
be free to use our full military strength and attack across the border into
Iraq.

‘I’m now going to tell you all some stuff that not very many people know
about, in Washington particularly,’ I said, and described the four phases of
attack we’d mapped out for Desert Storm: strategic bombing first; then
gaining control of the Kuwaiti skies; then bombing Iraqi artillery positions,
trench lines, and troops. At last I turned to the plan for the ground
offensive—a fully realized version of the envelopment I’d proposed to
[Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General] Powell three weeks before.
Using the map, I showed the commanders where I wanted them to maneuver
their units. The plan covered a huge area: in order to make sure we fought
the campaign on our own terms, we had extended the boundary of the
battlefield westward so that it encompassed a rectangle roughly the size of
Pennsylvania. Saddam’s forces were concentrated at the eastern end, in
and around Kuwait. Desert Shield forces would keep them from moving
south; to their east was the natural barrier of the gulf; to their north was the
Euphrates, which would become a natural barrier once [Joint Force Air
Component Commander, Lieutenant General] Chuck Horner’s air force

III-39
Chapter III

dropped the bridges that crossed it; and to the west were hundreds of miles
of desert that would become our main avenue of attack.

‘I anticipated,’ I said, ‘a four-pronged ground assault.’ Along the Saudi-

Kuwaiti border near the gulf, I wanted two divisions of U.S. (sic) Marines
and a Saudi task force to thrust straight into Kuwait, with the objective of
tying up Saddam’s forces and eventually encircling Kuwait City. Nodding
in [U.S. (sic) Marine Commander in DESERT STORM, Lieutenant General,
Walter E.] Boomer’s direction, I said, ‘I’ll leave it to Walt Boomer to figure
out how he wants to do that, but it also gives him the capability to come in
from the sea with his amphibious forces.’ I’d reserved a second corridor, in
the western part of Kuwait, for a parallel attack by the pan-Arab forces led
by two armored divisions from Egypt and another Saudi task force. Their
objective would be the road junction northwest of Kuwait City that controlled
Iraqi supply lines. Eventually they would enter Kuwait City and have the
dirty job of fighting the Iraqis house to house if necessary.

Meanwhile from the west would come the U.S. (sic) Army’s power punch.
Looking at [Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps, Lieutenant General] Gary
Luck, I indicated a section of Saudi-Iraqi border more than three hundred
and fifty miles inland. ‘I am probably going to send the XVIII Airborne Corps
very deep,’ I said, showing how I wanted Luck’s divisions to race north
from that area to the Euphrates, blocking the Republican Guard’s last route
of retreat. Once that sector was secured I told him, he would hook his
forces east, ready to join the attack on the main body of the Iraqi army.
Finally I turned to [Commander, VII Corps, Lieutenant General] Fred Franks.
‘I think it’s pretty obvious what your mission is going to be’, I said, moving
my hand along the desert corridor just to the west of Kuwait, ‘attack through
here and destroy the Republican Guard.’ I wanted to pin them with their
backs against the sea, and then go in and wipe them out. I couldn’t resist
adding, ‘Once they’re gone, be prepared to continue the attack to Baghdad.
Because there isn’t going to be anything else out there.’ I allowed that
taking Baghdad would probably be unnecessary, because by then the war
would have ended.

After a question-and-answer session I tried to set a tone for the coming

months. ‘Let me leave you with one thought, guys. In order for this to
succeed—because the enemy is still going to outnumber us—it is going to
take, for lack of a better word, killer instinct on the part of all of our leaders
out there.’ I pointed again at the map. ‘What I’m saying is when the Marines
hit the wire right here and when the Army forces hit the wire over here …we
need commanders in the lead who absolutely, dearly understand that they
will get through. And that once they’re through they’re not going to stop
and discuss it. They are going to go up there and destroy the Republican
Guard. I cannot afford to have commanders who do not understand that it
is attack, attack, attack, attack, and destroy every step of the way. If you
have somebody who doesn’t understand it, I would strongly recommend

III-40 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

that you consider removing him from command and putting in somebody
that can do the job.

‘Because, let’s face it, the prestige of the United States military is on our
shoulders. But more importantly, the prestige of the entire United States of
America rests on our shoulders. There isn’t going to be anybody else in
this thing except us. There are no more forces coming. What we got is
what’s going to do the job. And for our country we dare not fail. We cannot
fail, and we will not fail. Anybody in here who doesn’t understand that, get
out of the way. Any questions? Okay, good luck to you. You know what
needs to be done.’

Source: General H. Norman Schwarzkopf with Peter Pert

It Doesn’t Take a Hero, 1993

18. Plan or Order Development

a. For plans and orders developed per CJCSM 3122.01 (JOPES), the CJCS, in coordination
with the supported and supporting commanders and other members of the JCS, monitors planning
activities, resolves shortfalls when required, and reviews the supported commander’s OPLAN
for adequacy, feasibility, acceptability, completeness, and compliance with joint doctrine. The
supported commander will conduct in-progress reviews with the SecDef to confirm the plan’s
strategic guidance and receive approval of assumptions, the mission statement, the concept, the
plan, and any further guidance required for plan refinement. If the President or SecDef decides
to execute the plan, all three joint operation planning elements — situational awareness, planning,
and execution — continue in a complementary and iterative process.

b. The JFC guides plan development by issuing a PLANORD or similar planning directive
to coordinate the activities of the commands and agencies involved. A number of activities are
associated with plan development, as Figure III-12 shows. These planning activities typically
will be accomplished in a parallel, collaborative, and iterative fashion rather than sequentially,
depending largely on the planning time available. The same flexibility displayed in COA
development is seen here again, as planners discover and eliminate shortfalls.

c. The CJCSI 3122 series (JOPES) provides specific guidance on these activities for
organizations required to prepare a plan per JOPES procedures. However, these are typical
types of activities that other organizations also will accomplish as they plan for joint operations.
For example, a combatant command which is preparing a crisis-related OPORD at the President’s
direction will follow specific procedures and milestones in force planning, TPFDD development,
and shortfall identification. If required, a joint task force (JTF) subordinate to the combatant
command will support this effort even as the JTF commander and staff are planning for their specific
mission and tasks. The entire JTF-specific process for joint planning fits within the overall planning
process from the President and SecDef to the CJCS, to the CCDR, and on down to the JTF. This
process is especially close-knit between the CCDR and the JTF commander. Steps in the JTF planning
process may be combined or eliminated based upon the CCDR’s planning process and the time available.

III-41
Chapter III

PLAN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Force Planning Feasibility Analysis

Support Planning Refinement

Nuclear Strike Documentation

Deployment Planning Plan Review and Approval

Shortfall Identification Supporting Plan Development

Figure III-12. Plan Development Activities

(1) Application of Forces and Capabilities

(a) When planning the application of forces and capabilities, the JFC should
not be completely constrained by the strategic plan’s force apportionment if additional
resources are justifiable and no other COA within the allocation reasonably exists. The
additional capability requirements will be coordinated with the Joint Staff through the development
process. Risk assessments will include results using both allocated capabilities and additional
capabilities. Operation planning is inherently an iterative process, with forces being requested
and approved for certain early phases, while other forces may be needed or withdrawn for the
later phases. This process is particularly complex when planning a campaign because of the
potential magnitude of committed forces and length of the commitment. Finally, when making
this determination the JFC should also consider withholding some capability as an operational
reserve.

(b) When developing an OPLAN, the supported JFC should designate the main
effort and supporting efforts as soon as possible. This action is necessary for economy of
effort and for allocating disparate forces, to include multinational forces. The main effort is
based on the supported JFC’s prioritized objectives. It identifies where the supported JFC will
concentrate capabilities to achieve specific objectives. Designation of the main effort can be
addressed in geographical (area) or functional terms. Area tasks and responsibilities focus on
a specific area to control or conduct operations. An example is the assignment of areas of
operations for Army forces and Marine Corps forces operating in the same joint operations area.
Functional tasks and responsibilities focus on the performance of continuing efforts that involve the
forces of two or more Military Departments operating in the same domain — air, land, sea, or space —
or where there is a need to accomplish a distinct aspect of the assigned mission. An example is the
designation of the Navy component commander as the joint force air component commander when the
Navy component commander has the preponderance of the air assets and the ability to effectively plan,
task, and control joint air operations. In either case, designating the main effort will establish where or

III-42 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

how a major portion of available friendly forces and assets are employed, often to attain the primary
objective of a major operation or campaign.

(c) Designating a main effort facilitates the synchronized and integrated

employment of the joint force while preserving the initiative of subordinate commanders. After
the main effort is identified, joint force and component planners determine those tasks essential
to accomplishing objectives. The supported JFC assigns these tasks to subordinate commanders
along with the capabilities and support necessary to achieve them. As such, the CONOPS must
clearly specify the nature of the main effort.

(d) The main effort can change during the course of the operation based on
numerous factors, including changes in the operational environment and how the adversary
reacts to friendly operations. When the main effort changes, support priorities must change to
ensure success. Both horizontal and vertical coordination within the joint force and with
multinational and interagency partners is essential when shifting the main effort. Secondary
efforts are important, but are ancillary to the main effort. They normally are designed to
complement or enhance the success of the main effort (for example, by diverting enemy resources).
Only necessary secondary efforts, whose potential value offsets or exceeds the resources required,
should be undertaken, because these efforts divert resources from the main effort. Secondary
efforts normally lack the operational depth of the main effort and have fewer forces and
capabilities, smaller reserves, and more limited objectives.

(2) Force Planning

(a) The primary purposes of force planning are to: influence COA development
and selection based on force allocations, availability, and readiness; identify all forces needed to
accomplish the supported component commanders’ CONOPS with some rigor; and, effectively
phase the forces into the OA. Force planning consists of determining the force requirements by
operation phase, mission, mission priority, mission sequence, and operating area. It includes
force allocation review, major force phasing; integration planning; force list structure development;
followed by force list development. Force planning is the responsibility of the CCDR, supported
by component commanders in coordination with GFM and USJFCOM force providers. Force
planning begins early during CONOPS development and focuses on applying the right force to
the mission while ensuring force visibility, force mobility, and adaptability. The commander
determines force requirements; develops a letter of instruction or time phasing and force planning;
and designs force modules to align and time-phase the forces in accordance with the CONOPS.
Major forces and elements are selected from those apportioned or allocated for planning and
included in the supported commander’s CONOPS by operation phase, mission and mission
priority. Service components then collaboratively make tentative assessments of the specific
sustainment capabilities required in accordance with the CONOPS. After the actual forces are identified
(sourced), the CCDR refines the force plan to ensure it supports the CONOPS, provides force visibility,
and enables flexibility. The commander identifies and resolves or reports shortfalls with a risk assessment.

(b) In CAP, force planning focuses on the actual units designated to participate in the
planned operation and their readiness for deployment. The supported commander identifies force

III-43
Chapter III

requirements as operational capabilities in the form of force packages to facilitate sourcing by the Services,
USJFCOM, USSOCOM, and other force providers’ supporting commands. A force package is a list
(group of force capabilities) of the various forces (force requirements) that the supported commander
requires to conduct the operation described in the CONOPS. The supported commander typically
describes required force requirements in the form of broad capability descriptions or unit type codes,
depending on the circumstances. The supported commander submits the required force packages
through the Joint Staff to the force providers for sourcing. Force providers review the readiness and
deployability posture of their available units before deciding which units to allocate to the supported
commander’s force requirements. Services and their component commands also determine mobilization
requirements and plan for the provision of non-unit sustainment. The supported commander will review
the sourcing recommendations through the GFM process to ensure compatibility with capability
requirements and CONOPS.

(3) Support Planning. The purpose of support planning is to determine the sequence
of the personnel, logistic, and other support required to provide distribution, maintenance, civil
engineering, medical support, and sustainment in accordance with the concept of operation.
Support planning is conducted in parallel with other planning, and encompasses such essential
factors as executive agent identification; assignment of responsibility for base operating support;
airfield operations; management of non-unit replacements; health service support; personnel
management; financial management; handling of prisoners of war and detainees; theater civil
engineering policy; logistic-related environmental considerations; support of noncombatant
evacuation operations and other retrograde operations; and nation assistance. Support planning
is primarily the responsibility of the Service component commanders and begins during CONOPS
development. Service component commanders identify and update support requirements in
coordination with the Services, the Defense Logistics Agency, and USTRANSCOM. They
initiate the procurement of critical and low-density inventory items; determine host-nation support
(HNS) availability; develop plans for total asset visibility; and establish phased delivery plans
for sustainment in line with the phases and priorities of the CONOPS. They develop and train
for battle damage repair; develop reparable retrograde plans; develop container management
plans; develop force and line of communications protection plans; develop supporting phased
transportation and support plans aligned to the CONOPS and report movement support
requirements. Service component commanders continue to refine their sustainment and
transportation requirements as the force providers identify and source force requirements. During
distribution planning, the supported CCDR and USTRANSCOM resolve gross distribution
feasibility questions impacting intertheater and intratheater movement and sustainment delivery.
USTRANSCOM and other transportation providers identify air, land, and sea transportation
resources to support the approved CONOPS. These resources may include apportioned
intertheater transportation, GCC-controlled theater transportation, and transportation organic to
the subordinate commands. USTRANSCOM and other transportation providers develop
transportation schedules for movement requirements identified by the supported commander. A
transportation schedule does not necessarily mean that the supported commander’s CONOPS is
transportation feasible; rather, the schedules provide the most effective and realistic use of available
transportation resources in relation to the phased CONOPS.

III-44 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

(a) Support refinement is conducted to confirm the sourcing of logistic requirements

in accordance with strategic guidance and to assess the adequacy of resources provided through support
planning. This refinement ensures support is phased in accordance with the CONOPS; refines support
C2 planning; and integrates support plans across the supporting commands, Service components, and
agencies. It ensures an effective but minimum logistics foot-print for each phase of the CONOPS.

(b) Transportation refinement simulates the planned movement of resources

that require lift support to ensure that the plan is transportation feasible. The supported commander
evaluates and adjusts the concept of operation to achieve end-to-end transportation feasibility if
possible, or requests additional resources if the level of risk is unacceptable. Transportation
plans must be consistent and reconciled with plans and timelines required by providers of Service-
unique combat and support aircraft to the supported CCDR. Planning also must consider
requirements of international law; commonly understood customs and practices; and agreements
or arrangements with foreign nations with which the US requires permission for overflight,
access, and diplomatic clearance. If significant changes are made to the CONOPS, it should be
assessed for feasibility and refined to ensure it is acceptable.

(4) Nuclear Strike. Commanders must assess the military as well as political impact a
nuclear strike would have on their operations. Nuclear planning guidance issued at the CCDR level is
based on national-level political considerations and is influenced by the military mission. Although
USSTRATCOM conducts nuclear planning in coordination with the supported GCC and certain allied
commanders, the supported commander does not effectively control the decision to use nuclear weapons.
.
(5) Deployment Planning. Deployment planning is conducted on a continuous basis
for all approved OPLANs and as required for specific crisis action plans. In all cases, mission
requirements of a specific operation define the scope, duration, and scale of both deployment
and redeployment operation planning. Unity of effort is paramount, since both deployment and
redeployment operations involve numerous commands, agencies, and functional processes.
Because the ability to adapt to unforeseen conditions is essential, supported CCDRs must ensure
their deployment plans for each OPLAN or OPORD support global force visibility requirements.

(a) Operational Environment. For a given plan, deployment planning decisions

are based on the anticipated operational environment, which may be permissive, uncertain, or
hostile. The anticipated operational environment dictates the type of entry operations, deployment
concept, mobility options, predeployment training, and force integration requirements. Normally,
supported CCDRs, their subordinate commanders, and their Service components are responsible
for providing detailed situation information; mission statements by operation phase; theater support
parameters; strategic and operational lift allocations by phase (for both force movements and sustainment);
HNS information and environmental standards; and prepositioned equipment planning guidance.

(b) Deployment Concept. Supported CCDRs must develop a deployment concept

and identify specific predeployment standards necessary to meet mission requirements. Supporting
CCDRs provide trained and mission-ready forces to the supported combatant command deployment
concept and predeployment standard. Services recruit, organize, train, and equip interoperable forces.
The Services’ predeployment planning and coordination with the supporting combatant command must

III-45
Chapter III

ensure that predeployment standards specified by the supported CCDR are achieved, supporting
personnel and forces arrive in the supported theater fully prepared to perform their mission, and deployment
delays caused by duplication of predeployment efforts are eliminated. The Services and supporting
CCDRs must ensure unit OPLANs are prepared; forces are tailored and echeloned; personnel and
equipment movement plans are complete and accurate; command relationship and integration requirements
are identified; mission-essential tasks are rehearsed; mission-specific training is conducted; force protection
is planned and resourced; and sustainment requirements are identified. Careful and detailed planning
ensures that only required personnel, equipment, and materiel deploy; unit training is exacting; missions
are fully understood; deployment changes are minimized during execution; and the flow of personnel,
equipment, and movement of materiel into theater aligns with the concept of operation.

(c) Movement Planning. Movement planning integrates the activities and

requirements of units with partial or complete self-deployment capability, activities of units that
require lift support, and the transportation of sustainment and retrogrades. Movement planning
is highly collaborative and is enhanced by coordinated use of simulation and analysis tools.

1. The supported command is responsible for movement control, including

sequence of arrival, and exercises this authority through the TPFDD and the JOPES validation
process. The supported commander will use the organic lift and nonorganic, common-user,
strategic lift resources made available for planning by the CJCS. Competing requirements for
limited strategic lift resources, support facilities, and intratheater transportation assets will be
assessed in terms of impact on mission accomplishment. If additional resources are required, the
supported command will identify the requirements and provide rationale for those requirements.
The supported commander’s operational priorities and any movement constraints (e.g.,
assumptions concerning the potential use of WMD) are used to prepare a movement plan. The
plan will consider en route staging locations and the ability of these locations to support the
scheduled activity. This information, together with an estimate of required site augmentation,
will be communicated to appropriate supporting commanders. The global force manager and
USTRANSCOM use the Joint Flow Analysis and Sustainment for Transportation model to
assess transportation feasibility and develop recommendations on final port of embarkation
selections for those units without organic lift capability. Movement feasibility requires current
analysis and assessment of movement C2 structures and systems; available organic, strategic
and theater lift assets; transportation infrastructure; and competing demands and restrictions.

2. After coordinated review of the movement analysis by USTRANSCOM,

the supported command, and the global force provider, the supported command may adjust the
concept of operation to improve movement feasibility where operational requirements remain
satisfied. Commander, USTRANSCOM should adjust or reprioritize transportation assets to
meet the supported commander’s operational requirements. If this is not an option due to
requirements from other commanders, then the supported commander adjusts TPFDD
requirements or is provided additional strategic and theater lift capabilities using (but not limited
to) Civil Reserve Air Fleet and/or Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement capabilities as necessary
to achieve end-to-end transportation feasibility.

3. Operational requirements may cause the supported commander and/or

subordinate commanders to alter their plans, potentially impacting the deployment priorities or

III-46 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

TPFDD requirements. Planners must understand and anticipate the impact of change. There is a high
potential for a sequential pattern of disruption when changes are made to the TPFDD. A unit displaced
by a change might not simply move on the next available lift, but may require reprogramming for movement
at a later time. This may not only disrupt the flow, but may also interrupt the operation. Time is also a
factor in TPFDD changes. Airlift can respond to short-notice changes, but at a cost in efficiency. Sealift,
on the other hand, requires longer lead times, and cannot respond to change in a short period. These
plan changes and the resulting modifications to the TPFDDs must be handled during the planning cycles.

(d) Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration Planning.

JRSOI planning is conducted to ensure an integrated joint force arrives and becomes operational
in the OA as scheduled. Effective integration of the force into the joint operation is the primary
objective of the deployment phase.

(e) TPFDD Letter of Instruction (LOI). The supported commander publishes

supplemental instructions for time phasing force deployment data development in the TPFDD
LOI. The LOI provides operation specific guidance for utilizing the JOPES processes and
systems to provide force visibility and tracking; force mobility; and operational agility through
the TPFDD and the validation process. It provides procedures for the deployment, redeployment,
and rotations of the operation’s forces. The LOI provides instructions on force planning sourcing,
reporting, and validation. It defines planning and execution milestones and details movement
control procedures and lift allocations to the commander’s components, supporting commanders,
and other members of the JPEC. A TPFDD must ensure force visibility, be tailored to the phases
of the concept of operation, and be execution feasible.

(f) Deployment and JRSOI Refinement. Deployment and JRSOI refinement

is conducted by the supported command in coordination with Joint Staff, USJFCOM,
USTRANSCOM, the Services, and supporting commands. The purpose of the deployment and
JRSOI refinement is to ensure the force deployment plan maintains force mobility throughout
any movements, provides for force visibility and tracking at all times, provides for effective
force preparation, and fully integrates forces into a joint operation while enabling unity of effort.
This refinement conference examines planned missions, the priority of the missions within the
operation phases and the forces assigned to those missions. By mission, the refinement conference
examines force capabilities, force size, support requirements, mission preparation, force
positioning/basing, weapon systems, major equipment, force protection and sustainment
requirements. It should assess the feasibility of force closure by the commander’s required
delivery date and the feasibility of successful mission execution within the time frame established
by the commander under the deployment concept. This refinement conference should assess
potential success of all force integration requirements. Transition criteria for all phases should
be evaluated for force redeployment or rotation requirements.

(g) For lesser-priority plans that may be executed simultaneously with higher-priority
plans or on-going operations, combatant command and USTRANSCOM planners may develop several
different deployment scenarios to provide the CCDR a range of possible transportation conditions
under which the plan may have to be executed based on risk to this plan and the other ongoing operations.

III-47
Chapter III

This will help both the supported and supporting CCDRs identify risk associated with having to execute
multiple operations in a transportation-constrained environment.

(6) Shortfall Identification. Along with hazard and threat analysis, shortfall
identification is performed throughout the plan development process. The supported commander
continuously identifies limiting factors and capabilities shortfalls and associated risks as plan
development progresses. Where possible, the supported commander resolves the shortfalls and
required controls and countermeasures through planning adjustments and coordination with
supporting and subordinate commanders. If the shortfalls and necessary controls and
countermeasures cannot be reconciled or the resources provided are inadequate to perform the
assigned task, the supported commander reports these limiting factors and assessment of the
associated risk to the CJCS. The CJCS and the Service Chiefs consider shortfalls and limiting
factors reported by the supported commander and coordinate resolution. However, the completion
of assigned plans is not delayed pending the resolution of shortfalls. If shortfalls cannot be
resolved within the JSCP time frame, the completed plan will include a consolidated summary
and impact assessment of unresolved shortfalls and associated risks.

(7) Feasibility Analysis. This step in plan or order development is similar to

determining the feasibility of a COA, except that it typically does not involve simulation-based
wargaming. The focus in this step is on ensuring the assigned mission can be accomplished
using available resources within the time contemplated by the plan. The results of force planning,
support planning, deployment planning, and shortfall identification will affect OPLAN or OPORD
feasibility. The primary factors considered are whether the apportioned or allocated resources
can be deployed to the joint operations area when required, sustained throughout the operation,
and employed effectively, or whether the scope of the plan exceeds the apportioned resources
and supporting capabilities. Measures to enhance feasibility include adjusting the CONOPS,
ensuring sufficiency of resources and capabilities, and maintaining options and reserves.

(8) Refinement. During contingency planning, plan refinement typically is an orderly

process that follows plan development and is associated with the plan assessment planning
function (see Figure I-3). Refinement then continues on a regular basis as circumstances related
to the potential contingency change. In CAP, refinement is almost continuous throughout OPLAN
or OPORD development. Planners frequently adjust the plan or order based on results of force
planning, support planning, deployment planning, shortfall identification, revised JIPOE, and changes to
strategic guidance. Refinement continues even after execution begins, with changes typically transmitted
in the form of FRAGORDs rather than revised copies of the plan or order.

(9) Documentation. When the TPFDD is complete and end-to-end transportation

feasibility has been achieved and is acceptable to the commander, the supported commander
completes the documentation of the final, transportation-feasible OPLAN or OPORD and
coordinates distribution of the TPFDD within the JOPES network as appropriate.

(10) Plan Review and Approval. The plan review criteria shown in Figure III-13 are
common to contingency planning and CAP. When the final OPLAN or OPORD is complete,
the supported commander then submits it with the associated TPFDD file to the CJCS and

III-48 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

SecDef for review, approval, or modification. The JPEC reviews the supported commander’s OPLAN
or OPORD and provides the results of the review to the CJCS. The CJCS reviews and recommends
approval or disapproval of the OPLAN or OPORD to the SecDef. After the CJCS’s review, the
SecDef or President will review, approve, or modify the plan. The SecDef may delegate the approval
of OPLANs to the CJCS. The President is the final approval authority for OPORDs.

(11) Supporting Plan Development

(a) Supporting commanders prepare plans that encompass their role in the joint
operation. Employment planning is normally accomplished by the JFC (CCDR or subordinate
JFC) who will direct the forces if the plan is executed. Detailed employment planning may be
delayed when the politico-military situation cannot be clearly forecast, or it may be excluded
from supporting plans if employment is to be planned and executed within a multinational
framework.

(b) The supported commander normally reviews and approves supporting plans.
However, the CJCS may be asked to resolve critical issues that arise during the review of
supporting plans, and the Joint Staff may coordinate the review of any supporting plans should
circumstances so warrant. Contingency planning does not conclude when the supported
commander approves the supporting plans. Planning refinement and maintenance continues
until the operation terminates or the planning requirement is cancelled or superseded.

d. Transition is critical to the overall planning process. It is an orderly turnover of a plan or

order as it is passed to those tasked with execution of the operation. It provides information,
direction, and guidance relative to the plan or order that will help to facilitate situational awareness.
Additionally, it provides an understanding of the rationale for key decisions necessary to ensure
there is a coherent shift from planning to execution. These factors coupled together are intended
to maintain the intent of the CONOPS, promote unity of effort and generate tempo. Successful
transition ensures that those charged with executing an order have a full understanding of the
plan. Regardless of the level of command, such a transition ensures that those who execute the
order understand the commander’s intent and CONOPS. Transition may be internal or external
in the form of briefs or drills. Internally, transition occurs between future plans and future/
current operations. Externally, transition occurs between the commander and subordinate
commands.

(1) Transition Brief. At higher levels of command, transition may include a formal
transition brief to subordinate or adjacent commanders and to the staff supervising execution of
the order. At lower levels, it might be less formal. The transition brief provides an overview of
the mission, commander’s intent, task organization, and enemy and friendly situation. It is
given to ensure all actions necessary to implement the order are known and understood by those
executing the order. The brief should include items from the order or plan such as: higher
headquarters mission (tasks and intent), mission, commander’s intent, CCIRs, task organization, situation
(enemy and friendly), CONOPS, execution (including branches and sequels), and planning support
tools (synchronization matrix, JIPOE products, etc.).

III-49
Chapter III

PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA

Adequacy
The scope and concept of planned operations can accomplish the assigned mission and
comply with the planning guidance provided. Are the assumptions valid and do they
comply with strategic guidance. Planning assumptions must be reasonable and consistent
with planning guidance.

Feasibility
The assigned mission can be accomplished using available resources within the time
contemplated by the plan. Can the apportioned or allocated resources be used effectively
or does the scope of the plan exceed available resources? Measures to enhance feasibility
include crafting effective employment schemes, ensuring sufficiency of resources and
capabilities, and maintaining options and reserves.

Acceptability
The plan is proportional and worth the expected costs. Used with the criterion of
feasibility to ensure that the mission can be accomplished with available resources. Can
the plan be accomplished without incurring excessive losses in personnel, equipment,
materiel, time, or position? Risk management procedures can identify, assess, and control
hazards and threats associated with possible accidental losses.

Completeness
The plan incorporates all tasks to be accomplished. It includes forces required,
deployment concept, employment concept, sustainment concept, time estimates for
achieving objectives, mission success criteria, and military end state.

Compliance with Joint Doctrine

The plan complies with joint doctrine to the maximum extent possible. Approved joint
doctrine provides a baseline that facilitates both planning and execution. The exception to
this requirement is the development of multinational plans, which are the product of
bilateral or multinational negotiations. These plans should adhere to applicable joint
doctrine as closely as possible, but other nations and multinational organizations are not
bound by US joint doctrine.

Figure III-13. Plan Review Criteria

(2) Confirmation Brief. A confirmation brief is given by a subordinate commander after

receiving the order or plan. Subordinate commanders brief the higher commander on their understanding
of commander’s intent, their specific tasks and purpose, and the relationship between their unit’s missions
and the other units in the operation. The confirmation brief allows the higher commander to identify
potential gaps in the plan, as well as discrepancies with subordinate plans. It also gives the commander
insights into how subordinate commanders intend to accomplish their missions.

(3) Transition Drills. Transition drills increase the situational awareness of subordinate
commanders and the staff and instill confidence and familiarity with the plan. Sand tables, map
exercises, and rehearsals are examples of transition drills.

III-50 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

SECTION D. THE ESTIMATE PROCESS

19. The Estimate

a. The estimate process is central to formulating and updating military action to meet the
requirements of any situation. The estimate process should be used by commanders and staffs at
all levels. Though its central framework for organizing inquiry and decision is essentially the
same for any level of command, specific detailed questions within each part of this framework
will vary depending on the level and type of operation. The estimate process is continuous.
Both commander and staff estimates will become more detailed and refined as planning continues.
The JFC typically tailors the content and detail of the commander’s estimate based on the situation.

b. Commander’s Estimate

(1) The commander’s estimate provides a continuously updated source of information

from the perspective of the JFC. Commanders at various levels use estimates during JOPP to
support all aspects of COA determination and plan or order development. A supported joint
force commander (typically the CCDR) typically will submit a commander’s estimate in a crisis
situation to the CJCS in accordance with JOPES. This estimate considers the operational
environment, nature of anticipated operations, and national and multinational strategic direction.
The CCDR’s estimate is more comprehensive in scope than estimates of subordinate commanders.
Outside of formal JOPES requirements, a commander may or may not use a commander’s
estimate as the situation dictates. The commander’s initial intent statement and planning guidance
to the staff can provide sufficient information to guide the planning process. Although the JFC
will tailor the content of the commander’s estimate based on the situation, a typical format for an
estimate that a JFC submits per JOPES procedures is shown in Figure III-14.

(2) When a supported commander develops COAs and prepares a plan or order per
JOPES in response to a CJCS WARNORD, the commander submits an estimate that analyzes
various COAs that may be used to accomplish the assigned mission, and recommends the best COA.
Although the estimate prepared at the supported commander’s level may be detailed, the version submitted
to the CJCS typically will be abbreviated and contain only the information for the President, SecDef,
and CJCS to make relevant decisions. Supporting commanders typically do not submit estimates to the
CJCS, but may be requested to do so by the supported commander.

Refer to CJCSM 3122.01A (JOPES Volume I) for the specific format when there is a requirement
to submit a commander’s estimate to satisfy a formal JOPES planning requirement.

c. Staff Estimates

(1) A staff estimate is an assessment of the situation. It includes an evaluation of how factors
in a staff section’s functional area can influence each COA. Staff estimates provide the foundation for
COA selection. The purpose of staff estimates is to determine which COA best accomplishes the
mission and which can best be supported. This, together with the supporting discussion, gives the

III-51
Chapter III

COMMANDER’S ESTIMATE

Operational Description
Purpose of the Operation
References
Description of Military Operations

Narrative – Five Paragraphs

Mission
Situation and Courses of Action
Analysis of Opposing Courses of Action (Adversary Capabilities and Intentions)
Comparison of Friendly Courses of Action
Recommendation or Decision

Remarks
Remarks – Cite plan identification number of the file where detailed
requirements have been loaded into the Joint Operation Planning and
Execution System.

Figure III-14. Commander’s Estimate

commander the best possible information to select a COA. Figure III-15 shows examples of functional
areas requiring review during the staff estimate process. See Appendix B, “Sample Estimate Format,”
for a sample staff estimate format. In their staff estimates, each staff element:

(a) Reviews the mission and situation from its own staff functional perspective.

(b) Examines the factors and assumptions for which it is the responsible staff.

(c) Analyzes and refines each COA to determine its supportability from the perspective
of the staff’s functional area.

(d) Concludes whether the mission can be supported and which COA may best
be supported.

(2) Each staff estimate takes on a different focus that identifies certain assumptions,
detailed aspects of the tentative COAs, and potential deficiencies and risks that are simply not
known at any other level, but nevertheless must be considered. Such a detailed study of the
tentative COAs involves the corresponding staffs of subordinate and supporting commands.

III-52 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

FUNCTIONAL STAFF ESTIMATES

Mobilization
Identify and address actions that must occur to integrate and synchronize the use of
Reserve Component forces in the tentative courses of action (COAs).

Personnel
Identify and address known or anticipated personnel factors that may influence the
tentative COAs, including the anticipated need for individual and small-unit
replacements; the anticipated use of civilian, contract support, or indigenous
personnel; and the anticipated individual and unit rotation policy.

Intelligence
Identify relevant information about the operational environment. Provide information
about the adversary’s military system, including the anticipated military situation at the
beginning of the operation, enemy centers of gravity, limitations, intentions, potential
and most likely COAs, and priority intelligence requirements. Provide information on
other systems in the operational environment, including the populace, infrastructure,
social issues relevant to the military operation, political factors and relationships,
information architecture beyond just that of the military, and economic factors.

Logistics
Identify and address known or anticipated factors that may influence the feasibility of
providing required logistic support to sustain the timing, intensity, and duration of the
tentative COAs, including the required time-phasing to position support personnel to
receive and integrate required combat forces and to move sustainment stocks.

Engineering
Identify and address known or anticipated engineering factors that may influence
preparatory tasks, force deployment, force protection, and the reception, staging,
onward movement, and integration of forces. Identify construction requirements that
may need emergency or contingency construction authority.

Force Protection
Identify and examine known or anticipated force protection factors that may influence
the tentative COAs.

Interagency Support
Identify opportunities for interagency cooperation to facilitate unity of effort. Identify
requirements for interagency support of joint operations.

Figure III-15. Functional Staff Estimates

III-53
Chapter III

FUNCTIONAL STAFF ESTIMATES (continued)

Health Service Support
Identify and address known or anticipated medical threat factors that may affect force
health protection. These factors include theater patient movement policy; required
medical treatment, evacuation, and hospitalization capabilities; preventive medicine,
veterinary, and dental support required; health service logistics; and the medical
aspects of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defensive operations.

Transportation and Movement

Identify available transportation capabilities and coordination requirements to
support the time-phased deployment, employment, and sustainment of tentative COAs.
Include requirements for intertheater and intratheater transportation assets and
requirements to protect critical transportation nodes and lines of communications.

Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration

Identify available capabilities and coordination requirements for joint reception,
staging, onward movement, and integration of forces, including potential external
sources of support.

Communications Systems Support

Identify and examine the feasibility of providing adequate communications systems
support for tentative COAs.

Special Technical Operations

Identify and examine factors that may influence special technical operations which
support and are integrated with tentative courses of action (COAs).

Consequence Management
Identify and examine factors that may influence consequence management
operations which support and are integrated with tentative COAs.

Host-Nation Support
Identify, consolidate, and integrate host-nation support required for the tentative
COAs. Include the anticipated transportation and other support that the supported
commander must provide to multinational partners.

Legal Support
Identify legal issues that may affect tentative COAs, including those related to the
Law of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, and status-of-forces agreements.

Figure III-15 Functional Staff Estimates (continued)

(3) Collaboration among relevant military, interagency, and multinational staff elements during
the staff estimate process facilitates the iterative refinement of COAs. Early staff estimates are frequently
given as oral briefings to the rest of the staff. In the beginning, they tend to emphasize information
collection more than analysis. It is only in the later stages of the process that the staff estimates are

III-54 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

expected to indicate which COAs are most likely to succeed and can best be supported. The CJCSM
3122 series (JOPES), contains sample formats for staff estimates.

(4) Not every situation will require or permit a lengthy and formal staff estimate process.
For a simple mission or during CAP, the commander may review the assigned mission, receive
oral staff briefings, develop and select a COA informally, and direct that plan development
commence. However, contingency planning will demand a more formal and thorough process.
Written staff estimates are not mandatory, but they are useful because planners can extract
information from them to prepare the commander’s estimate and subsequent plans and orders.
Although documenting staff estimates can be delayed until after the preparation of the
commander’s estimate, they should be shared collaboratively with subordinate and supporting
commanders to help them prepare their supporting estimates, plans, and orders. This will improve
parallel planning and collaboration efforts of subordinate and supporting elements and help
reduce the planning times for the entire process.

(5) Based on the commander’s guidance, subordinate and supporting commanders

review the tentative COAs for supportability and begin identifying the forces and resources
required to support each tentative COA. Referencing existing TPFDD in the JOPES database
can expedite this process. Time permitting, a TPFDD is generated and assessed for each COA.
The subordinate and supporting commanders provide their commander’s estimates to the
supported commander with their COA recommendations.

(6) USTRANSCOM and other transportation providers review tentative COAs for
transportation feasibility and prepare deployment estimates for each tentative COA.
USTRANSCOM integrates the deployment estimates from all transportation providers and
furnishes a consolidated deployment estimate to the CJCS, supported commander, and other
JPEC members as appropriate.

(7) Joint force Service components monitor COA development, deployment planning,
and force readiness, and begin planning for deployment.

SECTION E. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT DURING EXECUTION

20. Execution

a. Execution begins when the President decides to use a military option to resolve a
crisis. Only the President or SecDef can authorize the CJCS to issue an EXORD. The EXORD
directs the supported commander to initiate military operations, defines the time to initiate
operations, and conveys guidance not provided earlier. The CJCS monitors the deployment
and employment of forces, acts to resolve shortfalls, and directs action needed to ensure successful
completion of military operations. Execution continues until the operation is terminated or
the mission is accomplished or revised. The CAP process may be repeated continuously as
circumstances and missions change.

III-55
Chapter III

b. During execution, changes to the original plan may be necessary because of tactical, intelligence,
and environmental considerations, force and non-unit cargo availability, availability of strategic lift assets,
and port capabilities. Therefore, ongoing refinement and adjustment of deployment requirements and
schedules and close coordination and monitoring of deployment activities are required. The JOPES
contains the following information, at a minimum, at the time of OPORD execution:

(1) Sourced combat and sustainment capability requirements for assigned forces.

(2) Integrated critical resupply requirements identified by supply category, port of

debarkation, and latest arrival date (LAD) at port of debarkation.

(3) Integrated non-unit personnel filler and casualty replacements by numbers and
day.

c. The CJCS publishes the EXORD that defines the unnamed day on which operations
commence or are scheduled to commence (D-day) and the specific time an operation or exercise
begins (H-hour) and directs execution of the OPORD. The CJCS’s EXORD is a record
communication that authorizes execution of the COA approved by the President and SecDef
and detailed in the supported commander’s OPORD. It may include further guidance, instructions,
or amplifying orders. In a fast-developing crisis the EXORD may be the first record
communication generated by the CJCS. The record communication may be preceded by a voice
announcement. The issuance of the EXORD is time-sensitive. The format may differ depending
on the amount of previous record correspondence and applicability of prior guidance. JOPES
Volume I contains the format for the EXORD. Information already communicated in previous
orders should not be repeated unless previous orders were not made available to all concerned.
The EXORD need only contain the authority to execute the operation and any additional essential
guidance, such as D-day and H-hour.

d. Throughout execution, the Joint Staff monitors movements, assesses achievement of

tasks, and resolves shortfalls as necessary. The CJCS should monitor the situation for potential
changes in the applicability of current termination criteria and communicate them to all concerned parties.

e. The supported commander issues an EXORD to subordinate and supporting commanders

upon receipt of the CJCS’s EXORD. It may give the detailed planning guidance resulting from
updated or amplifying orders, instructions, or guidance that the CJCS’s EXORD does not cover.
The supported commander also monitors, assesses, and reports achievement of objectives; ensures
that data are updated in the JOPES database; and re-plans, re-deploys, or terminates operations
as necessary, in compliance with termination criteria directed by the President or SecDef.

f. Subordinate and supporting commanders execute their OPORDs, revalidate the sourcing
and scheduling of units, report movement of organic lift, and report deployment movements on
the JOPES database. These commanders conduct the operation as directed and fulfill their
responsibilities to sustain their Service forces in the OA.

III-56 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

g. USTRANSCOM components validate transportation movement planned for the first increment,
adjust deployment flow and reschedule as required, and continue to develop transportation schedules
for subsequent increments. Both statuses of movements and future movement schedules are entered in
the JOPES database.

h. Planning during Execution. Planning continues during execution, with an initial

emphasis on refining the existing plan and producing the OPORD. As the operation progresses,
planning generally occurs in three distinct but overlapping timeframes: future plans, future
operations, and current operations as Figure III-16 depicts.

(1) The joint force J-5’s effort focuses on future plans. The timeframe of focus for
this effort varies according to the level of command, type of operation, JFC’s desires, and other
factors. Typically the emphasis of the future plans effort is on planning the next phase of operations
or sequels to the current operation. In a campaign, this could be planning the next major operation
(the next phase of the campaign).

(2) Planning also occurs for branches to current operations (future operations
planning). The timeframe of focus for future operations planning varies according to the factors
listed for future plans, but the period typically is more near-term than the future plans timeframe.
Future planning could occur in the J-5 or JPG, while future operations planning could occur in
the joint operations center or J-3.

(3) Finally, current operations planning addresses the immediate or very near-term
planning issues associated with ongoing operations. This occurs in the joint operations center or
J-3.

21. Assessment

a. General. Assessment is a process that measures progress of the joint force toward
mission accomplishment. Commanders continuously assess the operational environment and
the progress of operations, and compare them to their initial vision and intent. Commanders adjust
operations based on their assessment to ensure objectives are met and the military end state is achieved.

(1) The assessment process is continuous and directly tied to the commander’s
decisions throughout planning, preparation, and execution of operations. Staffs help the
commander by monitoring the numerous aspects that can influence the outcome of operations
and provide the commander timely information needed for decisions. The CCIR process is
linked to the assessment process by the commander’s need for timely information and
recommendations to make decisions. The assessment process helps staffs by identifying key
aspects of the operation that the commander is interested in closely monitoring and where the
commander wants to make decisions. Examples of commander’s critical decisions include
when to transition to another phase of a campaign, what the priority of effort should be, or how
to adjust command relationships between component commanders.

III-57
Chapter III

PLANNING DURING EXECUTION

Command Group prioritizes joint force planning efforts and

provides guidance and direction throughout the process

Long-term Near-term Current

Planning Planning Operations Planning
J-5 J-3 J-3
Future Plans Future Operations Current Operations
• Develop Initial OPLAN or • Refine OPLAN or OPORD • Issue OPORD and/or
OPORD based on current situation FRAGORD
• Sequel (next phase) • Plan for branches to • Monitor, assess, direct,
planning current operations and control execution

“What’s Next?” CAP products “What If?” “What Is?”

OPLAN operation plan OPORD operation order

FRAGORD fragmentary order CAP crisis action planning

Figure III-16. Planning During Execution

(2) The assessment process begins during mission analysis when the commander and staff
consider what to measure and how to measure it to determine progress toward accomplishing a
task, creating an effect, or achieving an objective. During planning and preparation for an operation,
for example, the staff assesses the joint force’s ability to execute the plan based on available resources
and changing conditions in the operational environment. However, the discussion in this section
focuses on assessment for the purpose of determining the progress of the joint force toward
mission accomplishment.

(3) Commanders and their staffs determine relevant assessment actions and
measures during planning. They consider assessment measures as early as mission analysis,
and include assessment measures and related guidance in commander and staff estimates. They
use assessment considerations to help guide operational design because these considerations
can affect the sequence and type of actions along LOOs. During execution, they continually
monitor progress toward accomplishing tasks, creating effects, and achieving objectives.
Assessment actions and measures help commanders adjust operations and resources as required,
determine when to execute branches and sequels, and make other critical decisions to ensure
current and future operations remain aligned with the mission and end state. Normally, the joint
force J-3, assisted by the J-2, is responsible for coordinating assessment activities. For subordinate
commanders’ staffs, this may be accomplished by equivalent elements within joint functional
and/or Service components. The chief of staff facilitates the assessment process and determination
of CCIRs by incorporating them into the headquarters’ battle rhythm. Various elements of the
JFC’s staff use assessment results to adjust both current operations and future planning.

III-58 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

(4) Friendly, adversary, and neutral diplomatic, informational, and economic actions applied
in the operational environment can impact military actions and objectives. When relevant to the mission,
the commander also must plan for using assessment to evaluate the results of these actions. This
typically requires collaboration with other agencies and multinational partners — preferably within a
common, accepted process — in the interest of unified action. For example, failure to coordinate
overflight and access agreements with foreign governments in advance or to adhere to international law
regarding sovereignty of foreign airspace could result in mission delay, failure to meet US objectives,
and/or an international incident. Many of these organizations may be outside the JFC’s authority.
Accordingly, the JFC should grant some joint force organizations authority for direct coordination with
key outside organizations — such as USG interagency elements from DOS or the Department of
Homeland Security, national intelligence agencies, intelligence sources in other nations, and other combatant
commands — to the extent necessary to ensure timely and accurate assessments.

b. Levels of War and Assessment

(1) Assessment occurs at all levels and across the entire range of military operations.
Even in operations that do not include combat, assessment of progress is just as important and
can be more complex than traditional combat assessment. As a general rule, the level at which
a specific operation, task, or action is directed should be the level at which such activity is
assessed. To do this, JFCs and their staffs consider assessment ways, means, and measures
during planning, preparation, and execution. This properly focuses assessment and collection at
each level, reduces redundancy, and enhances the efficiency of the overall assessment process.
See Figure III-17.

(2) Assessment at the operational and strategic levels typically is broader than at the
tactical level (e.g., combat assessment) and uses MOEs that support strategic and operational
mission accomplishment. Strategic- and operational-level assessment efforts concentrate on
broader tasks, effects, objectives, and progress toward the end state. Continuous assessment
helps the JFC and joint force component commanders determine if the joint force is “doing the
right things” to achieve objectives, not just “doing things right.” The JFC also can use MOEs to
determine progress toward success in those operations for which tactical-level combat assessment
ways, means, and measures do not apply.

(3) Tactical-level assessment typically uses MOPs to evaluate task accomplishment.

The results of tactical tasks are often physical in nature, but also can reflect the impact on
specific functions and systems. Tactical-level assessment may include assessing progress by
phase lines; neutralization of enemy forces; control of key terrain or resources; and security,
relief, or reconstruction tasks. Assessment of results at the tactical level helps commanders
determine operational and strategic progress, so JFCs must have a comprehensive, integrated
assessment plan that links assessment activities and measures at all levels.

(4) Combat assessment is an example of a tactical-level assessment and is a term that can
encompass many tactical-level assessment actions. Combat assessment typically focuses on determining
the results of weapons engagement (with both lethal and nonlethal capabilities), and thus is an important
component of joint fires and the joint targeting process (see JP 3-60, Joint Targeting). Combat

III-59
Chapter III

ASSESSMENT LEVELS AND MEASURES

Level Guidance
Assessed using measures of
National End State and effectiveness -- MOEs
Strategic Objectives (are we doing the right things?)

Theater End State & Mission

Strategic Objectives
Effects
Tasks Assessed using measures of
performance -- MOPs (are we
Operational Mission
doing things right?)
Objectives
Effects Combat tasks
Tasks (particularly fires)
Tactical Mission use Combat Assessment
Objectives
Tasks Battle Damage Munitions Effectiveness
Assessment Assessment

Reattack or
Future Targeting

Figure III-17. Assessment Levels and Measures

assessment is composed of three related elements: battle damage assessment, munitions

effectiveness assessment, and future targeting or reattack recommendations. However, combat
assessment methodology also can be applied by joint force functional and Service components to other
tactical tasks not associated with joint fires (e.g., disaster relief delivery assessment, relief effectiveness
assessment, and future relief recommendations).

c. Assessment Process and Measures

(1) The assessment process uses MOPs to evaluate task performance at all levels
of war and MOEs to determine progress of operations toward achieving objectives. MOEs
help answer questions like: “are we doing the right things, are our actions producing the desired
effects, or are alternative actions required?” MOPs are closely associated with task
accomplishment. MOPs help answer questions like: “was the action taken, were the tasks
completed to standard, or how much effort was involved?” Well-devised measures can help the
commanders and staffs understand the causal relationship between specific tasks and desired
effects.

(a) MOEs assess changes in system behavior, capability, or operational

environment. They measure the attainment of an end state, achievement of an objective, or creation of
an effect; they do not measure task performance. These measures typically are more subjective than

III-60 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

MOPs, and can be crafted as either qualitative or quantitative. MOEs can be based on quantitative
measures to reflect a trend and show progress toward a measurable threshold.

(b) MOPs measure task performance. They are generally quantitative, but also can
apply qualitative attributes to task accomplishment. MOPs are used in most aspects of combat assessment,
since it typically seeks specific, quantitative data or a direct observation of an event to determine
accomplishment of tactical tasks. But MOPs have relevance for noncombat operations as well (e.g.,
tons of relief supplies delivered or noncombatants evacuated). MOPs also can be used to measure
operational and strategic tasks, but the type of measurement may not be as precise or as easy to
observe.

KEY TERMS

measure of performance — A criterion used to assess friendly actions that

is tied to measuring task accomplishment.

measure of effectiveness — A criterion used to assess changes in system

behavior, capability, or operational environment that is tied to measuring
the attainment of an end state, achievement of an objective, or creation of
an effect.

(2) The assessment process and related measures should be relevant, measurable,
responsive, and resourced so there is no false impression of accomplishment. Quantitative measures
can be helpful in this regard.

(a) Relevant. MOPs and MOEs should be relevant to the task, effect, operation, the
operational environment, the end state, and the commander’s decisions. This criterion helps avoid
collecting and analyzing information that is of no value to a specific operation. It also helps ensure
efficiency by eliminating redundant efforts.

(b) Measurable. Assessment measures should have qualitative or quantitative

standards they can be measured against. To effectively measure change, a baseline measurement
should be established prior to execution to facilitate accurate assessment throughout the operation.
Both MOPs and MOEs can be quantitative or qualitative in nature, but meaningful quantitative
measures are preferred because they are less susceptible to subjective interpretation.

(c) Responsive. Assessment processes should detect situation changes quickly

enough to enable effective response by the staff and timely decisions by the commander. The
JFC and staff should consider the time required for an action or actions to produce desired
results within the operational environment and develop indicators that can respond accordingly.
Many actions directed by the JFC require time to implement and may take even longer to produce a
measurable result.

III-61
Chapter III

(d) Resourced. To be effective, assessment must be adequately resourced. Staffs

should ensure resource requirements for data collection efforts and analysis are built into plans
and monitored. Effective assessment can help avoid both duplication of tasks and unnecessary
actions, which in turn can help preserve combat power.

D-21 (310600Z Jan):

The J-3 has been considering the latest revision to measures of

effectiveness (MOEs) associated with the CCDR’s approved list of desired
and undesired effects. The assessment process actually began during
mission analysis, when the commander and staff discussed how to measure
progress toward producing the desired effects and achieving objectives.
COA analysis and wargaming helped refine the MOEs for most effects,
particularly with regard to identifying quantitative measures where
possible. As an example, the J-3 will recommend the following MOEs to
the CCDR for effect E-3-4: Regional countries welcome US intervention.

MOE 3-4-1: Number of key countries granting over-flight rights

MOE 3-4-2: Number of regional countries that sign United Nations (UN)
resolution against Red aggression
MOE 3-4-3: Ratio of media broadcasts and articles for vice against US
intervention
MOE 3-4-4: Ratio of significant public protests to supportive rallies
MOE 3-4-5: Number of supportive diplomatic communiqués

The MOEs above represent the measures. The J-3 can determine a
positive or negative trend by comparing individual measures over time. The
J-3 also should recommend (and the CCDR should approve) a minimum or
maximum threshold for each MOE. A threshold represents a level of activity
or a proportion of accomplishment that the commander considers
acceptable. For example, if nine regional countries are in a position to
sign a UN resolution against Red aggression, the CCDR could set a
threshold of six countries as a solid indication of regional support. Likewise,
the J-3 (advised by the public affairs officer and political advisor) could
recommend that a ratio of two-to-one broadcasts and articles in favor of
US intervention is a minimum threshold for MOE 3-4-3.

(3) Commanders and staffs derive relevant assessment measures during the planning process
and reevaluate them continuously throughout preparation and execution. They consider assessment
measures during mission analysis, refine these measures in the JFC’s planning guidance and in commander’s
and staff’s estimates, wargame the measures during COA development, and include MOEs and MOPs
in the approved plan or order. An integrated data collection management plan is critical to the success of the
assessment process, and should encompass all available tactical, theater, and national intelligence sources.

III-62 JP 5-0
 The Joint Operation Planning Process

(4) Just as tactical tasks relate to operational- and strategic-level tasks, effects, and objectives,
there is a relationship between assessment measures. By monitoring available information and using
MOEs and MOPs as assessment tools during planning, preparation, and execution, commanders and
staffs determine progress toward creating desired effects, achieving objectives, and attaining the military
end state, and modify the plan as required. Well-devised MOPs and MOEs, supported by effective
information management, help the commanders and staffs understand the linkage between specific
tasks, the desired effects, and the JFC’s objectives and end state.

III-63
Chapter III

Intentionally Blank

III-64 JP 5-0
 CHAPTER IV
OPERATIONAL ART AND DESIGN

“In forming the plan of a campaign, it is requisite to foresee everything the enemy
may do, and be prepared with the necessary means to counteract it. Plans of the
campaign may be modified ad infinitum according to the circumstances, the genius
of the general, the character of the troops, and the features of the country.”

Napoleon
Maxims of War, 1831

SECTION A. INTRODUCTION

1. Operational Art

a. Operational art is the application of creative imagination by commanders and

staffs — supported by their skill, knowledge, and experience — to design strategies,
campaigns, and major operations and organize and employ military forces. Operational
art integrates ends, ways, and means across the levels of war. It is the thought process commanders
use to visualize how best to efficiently and effectively employ military capabilities to accomplish
their mission. Operational art also promotes unified action by helping JFCs and staffs understand
how to facilitate the integration of other agencies and multinational partners toward achieving
the national strategic end state.

b. In applying operational art, the JFC draws on judgment, perception, experience, education,
intelligence, boldness, and character to visualize the conditions necessary for success before
committing forces. Operational art requires broad vision, the ability to anticipate, and the skill
to plan, prepare, execute, and assess. It helps commanders and their staffs order their thoughts
and understand the conditions for victory before seeking battle. Without operational art, campaigns
and operations would be a set of disconnected engagements.

c. The JFC uses operational art to consider not only the employment of military forces, but
also their sustainment and the arrangement of their efforts in time, space, and purpose. This
includes fundamental methods associated with synchronizing and integrating military forces
and capabilities. Operational art helps the JFC overcome the ambiguity and uncertainty of a
complex operational environment. Operational art governs the deployment of forces, their
commitment to or withdrawal from a joint operation, and the arrangement of battles and major
operations to achieve operational and strategic military objectives. Among the many
considerations, operational art requires commanders to answer the following questions.

(1) What conditions are required to achieve the objectives? (Ends)

(2) What sequence of actions is most likely to create those conditions? (Ways)

(3) What resources are required to accomplish that sequence of actions? (Means)

IV-1
Chapter IV

(4) What is the likely cost or risk in performing that sequence of actions?

2. Operational Design

a. Joint operation planning — particularly for extensive operations that require a campaign
— uses various elements of operational design to help commanders and staffs visualize the
arrangement of joint capabilities in time, space, and purpose to accomplish the mission.
Operational design is the conception and construction of the framework that underpins a
joint operation plan and its subsequent execution. While operational art is the manifestation
of informed vision and creativity, operational design is the practical extension of the creative
process. Together they synthesize the intuition and creativity of the commander with the analytical
and logical process of design. The key to operational design essentially involves: (1) understanding
the strategic guidance (determining the end state and objectives); (2) identifying the adversary’s
principal strengths and weaknesses, and; (3) developing an operational concept that will achieve
strategic and operational objectives.

b. Operational design — the focus of Section B of this chapter — is intrinsic to JOPP.

JOPP provides a logical set of planning steps through which the commander and staff interact,
and operational design supports JOPP by providing a number of design elements to help the
commander and staff visualize and shape the operation to accomplish the mission. These elements
of operational design comprise a tool that is particularly helpful during COA determination.
Resulting design alternatives provide the basis for selecting a COA and developing the detailed
CONOPS.

c. During execution, commanders and planners continue to consider design elements and
adjust both current operations and future plans to capitalize on tactical and operational successes
as the joint operation unfolds. Operational design elements are useful when designing either a
campaign or single operation. However, their application is broadest in the context of a joint
campaign.

3. The Campaign

a. A campaign is a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing strategic

and operational objectives within a given time and space. Planning for a campaign is appropriate
when the contemplated simultaneous or sequential military operations exceed the scope of a
single major operation. Joint operation planning and planning for a campaign are not
separate planning types or processes. Joint operation planning encompasses planning for any
type of joint operation, such as small-scale, short-duration strike or raid; an operation that typically
does not involve combat such as nation assistance; and large-scale, long-duration campaigns.
Campaigns are joint — functional components (air, land, maritime, and special operations)
and Service components plan and conduct subordinate and supporting operations, not
independent campaigns.

b. The 1990-91 Persian Gulf Conflict is an example of a campaign with a sequence of two
major operations: Operation DESERT SHIELD to defend Saudi Arabia and Operation DESERT

IV-2 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

STORM to liberate Kuwait. Campaign planning has its greatest application in the conduct of
large-scale combat operations such as these, but can be used across the range of military operations.
While intended primarily to guide the use of military power, joint operation plans for campaigns
consider all instruments of national power and how their integrated and/or coordinated efforts
work to attain national strategic objectives.

c. JFCs prepare a plan for a campaign in OPLAN format, and this can occur during either
contingency planning or CAP. However, plans for campaigns have considerations that set them
apart from other plans. Campaigns are often the most complex and extensive joint operations in
terms of time and other resources. An OPLAN for a campaign typically requires the broadest
strategic concepts of operation and sustainment for achieving multinational, national, and theater-
strategic objectives. There are three general types of campaigns, which differ generally in
scope.

(1) Global Campaign. A global campaign is one that requires the accomplishment of
strategic objectives in joint operations in multiple AORs. In this case there could be more than
one supported GCC, and planners must be aware of competing requirements for potentially
scarce strategic resources such as ISR assets, specialized and unique units and equipment, and
transportation.

(a) A global campaign is the primary means by which the CJCS or delegated
CCDR arrange for strategic unity of effort and purpose and through which they guide the planning,
integration, and coordination of joint operations across AOR boundaries. Global campaigns
will often establish the strategic and operational framework within which theater and subordinate
campaigns are developed. Global campaigns mitigate cross-AOR operational risks.

(b) A global campaign plan can orient on the adversary’s COGs unrestricted by
AOR boundaries. This plan embodies the CJCS or delegated CCDR’s vision of the arrangement
of the related major operations of two or more CCDRs necessary to attain strategic objectives as
a coordinated effort independent of AOR boundaries. A global campaign will also integrate
many interdependent, cross-AOR, mission such as security cooperation, intelligence collection,
strategic communication, flexible deterrence, sustainment, and coalition support. The “Global
War on Terrorism” is an example of a campaign that spans all AORs.

(2) Theater Campaign. A theater campaign encompasses the activities of a supported

GCC, which accomplish strategic or operational objectives within a theater of war or theater of
operations, primarily within the supported CCDR’s AOR. An OPLAN for a theater campaign
is the operational extension of a CCDR’s theater strategy, and translates theater strategic
concepts into unified action. Adjacent GCCs may conduct supporting operations within the
AOR of the supported CCDR, or within their own AORs, under the overall direction of the
supported GCC. Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM comprised a theater
campaign in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf Conflict.

(3) Subordinate Campaign. A subordinate campaign plan describes the actions of a

subordinate JFC, which accomplish (or contribute to the accomplishment of) strategic or

IV-3
Chapter IV

operational objectives in support of a global or theater campaign. Subordinate JFCs develop

subordinate campaign plans if their assigned missions require military operations of substantial
size, complexity, and duration and cannot be accomplished within the framework of a single
major joint operation. Subordinate campaign plans should be consistent with the strategic and
operational guidance and direction developed by the supported JFC.

SECTION B. OPERATIONAL DESIGN

4. Strategic Guidance

a. General. Strategic guidance is essential to operational art and design. As Chapter II,
“Strategic Direction,” discussed, the President, SecDef, CJCS, and CCDRs all promulgate strategic
guidance. In general, this guidance provides long-term as well as intermediate or ancillary
objectives. It should define what constitutes “victory,” or success (ends) and allocate adequate
forces and resources (means) to achieve strategic objectives. The method (ways) of employing
military capabilities to achieve the ends is for the supported JFC to develop and propose.

b. The National Strategic End State and Related Strategic Objectives. For specific
situations that require the employment of military capabilities (particularly for anticipated large-
scale combat), the President and SecDef typically will establish a set of national strategic
objectives. Achievement of these objectives should result in attainment of the national strategic
end state — the broadly expressed conditions that should exist after the conclusion of a
campaign or operation. Based on the strategic guidance, the CCDR will determine the military
end state and strategic military objectives, which define the role of military forces. These
objectives are the basis for operational design. See Section B of Chapter III, “The Joint
Operation Planning Process,” for a more detailed discussion of the end state and strategic
objectives.

5. Operational Design Elements

a. Operational art encompasses operational design — the process of developing the

intellectual framework that will underpin all plans and their subsequent execution. The
elements of operational design are tools to help supported JFCs and their staffs visualize what
the joint operation should look like and to shape the commander’s intent. The emphasis applied
to an operational design’s elements varies with the theater’s strategic objectives. The strategic
environment is not the only factor that affects operational design. Other factors such as the
availability of HNS, diplomatic permission to overfly nations and access en route air bases, the
allocation of strategic mobility assets, the state of the theater infrastructure, and forces and
resources made available for planning all have an impact on the operational design. In the final
analysis, the goals of a sound operational design are to ensure a clear focus on the ultimate
strategic objective and corresponding strategic COGs, and provide for sound sequencing,
synchronization, and integration of all available military and nonmilitary instruments of power
to that end. The fundamental elements of operational design are shown in Figure IV-1 and
discussed in the remainder of this chapter.

IV-4 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

ELEMENTS OF OPERATIONAL DESIGN

Operat
ional A
rt DESIGN ELEMENTS
Termination
Operat
End State & Objectives ional A
Effects rt
Center of Gravity Arrangement of
Decisive Points Capabilities in Time,
O
Direct versus Indirect Space, and Purpose P
National Strategic Lines of Operations E
End State Linkage of Ends, J
R
Ways, and Means O
Systems Perspective Joint Operation Planning Process A
Course of Action I
of the Operational T
Operational Reach N
Environment Commander’s I
Simultaneity & Depth T
Intent O
Timing & Tempo
Forces & Functions Concept of N
Leverage Operations S
Balance
t
onal Ar
Operati
Anticipation
Synergy
Culmination
rt
ional A Arranging Operations
Operat

Figure IV-1. Elements of Operational Design

b. Termination

(1) Termination is discussed first among the elements of operational design because
effective planning cannot occur without a clear understanding of the end state and the conditions
that must exist to end military operations. Knowing when to terminate military operations and
how to preserve achieved advantages is key to achieving the national strategic end state. To plan
effectively for termination, the supported JFC must know how the President and SecDef intend
to terminate the joint operation and ensure its outcomes endure.

(2) In formulating an OPLAN, the supported JFC and staff should, as a minimum, do
the following:

(a) Understand that conflict termination is a key aspect of the planning process.

(b) Emphasize backward planning — planning which begins with consideration

of conflict termination, reconstitution, and redeployment and works backward to the pre-hostilities
phase.

(c) Define the conditions of the “stabilize” and “enable civil authority” phases.
The military objectives must support the political aims — the campaign’s conflict termination

IV-5
Chapter IV

process is a part of a larger implicit bargaining process, even while hostilities continue. The
military contribution can significantly affect the political leverage available to influence that
process.

(d) Consider how efforts to eliminate or degrade an adversary’s C2 may affect,

positively or negatively, efforts to achieve the termination objectives. For instance, will adversaries
be able to effect a cease fire or otherwise control the actions of their forces?

(e) Incorporate relevant agencies in the planning process, since interagency

coordination and actions play a major role in termination activities. The supported JFC and staff
should view conflict termination not just as the end of hostilities, but as the transition to a new
post-hostilities period characterized by both civil and military challenges that must be worked
jointly.

(f) Consider how efforts to eliminate or degrade an adversary’s national

infrastructure, institutions, and organizations may affect post-operations military and political
objectives. For example, disbanding and disarming a nation’s police force has effects that must
be carefully weighed during the planning process.

(3) The JFC and staff require a clear understanding of termination as they begin mission
analysis. See Section B of Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,” for a
more detailed discussion of termination and its relationship to the national strategic end
state, the military end state, and strategic military objectives.

c. End State and Objectives. Once the termination criteria are established, operational
design continues with development of the strategic military objectives and definition of the
military end state. This end state normally will represent a point in time and/or circumstance
beyond which the President does not require the military instrument of national power to achieve
remaining national strategic objectives. The JFC and staff require a clear understanding of end
state and objectives as they begin mission analysis. See Section B of Chapter III, “The Joint
Operation Planning Process,” for a more detailed discussion of end state and objectives as
they relate to JOPP.

Continuation of Planning Vignette

from Chapter III, Page III-38

D-35 (170800Z Jan):

At the previous briefing, CDRXCOM discussed his concept for the first
three phases of the operation: Deter, Seize Initiative, and Dominate. The
J-5 now summarizes the operation’s phases, which will be covered in the
OPORD.

IV-6 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

We envision the complete operation to consist of the following five

primary phases, with some subordinate phases.

Phase I: Deter
Phase IA: Deploy
Phase IB: Defend

Phase II: Defend and Seize Initiative

Phase IIA: Defend
Phase IIB: Attack

Phase III: Dominate

Phase IIIA: COG Operations North
Phase IIIB: Capitaltown Operations South

Phase IV: Stabilize

Phase V: Enable Civil Authority

Phase VA: Red Leadership Transition (a branch executed o/o)
Phase VB: Transition to JTF Support
Phase VC: Redeploy

The nature of these phases will depend on whether or not the current
Red leader remains in power. If he does, we may well move from Phase IV
directly into Phase VC (redeploy).

We are in Phase IA now, as you know. We expect to have sufficient

combat power in place to conduct a successful ground defense within 10
days, and we don’t expect Red to attack before then. We will continue to
deploy, but remain in Phase I until Red attacks. At that point, Phase II begins
automatically, and Phase IIA will continue until we have combat power
sufficient to go on the offense. This won’t be until deployment of 10th Army’s
VI Corps (the main effort for Phase IIIA) and IV MEF (the main effort for
Phase IIIB) complete RSOI.

Phase IIIA will focus on operations against the Red armored corps in the
north as the commander described yesterday. This will be supported by
operations along the coast in the south, which will transition to Phase IIIB
as the JFLCC moves to secure Capitaltown. We can expect the normal type
of stability operations in Phase IV, but specific requirements will depend on
when the Red leader surrenders.

We have planned Phase VA, a branch to the plan, to support the possible
transition of new government and military leadership in Red. If the current
Red leader remains in power, we will continue with Phase IV as required
and transition to Phase VB. SecDef has directed that we decrease our visible

IV-7
Chapter IV

presence in the region when the situation is stabilized. In Phase VB, we

will transition C2 for operations to JTF support, formed on the JFLCC HQ.
Concurrently, we will begin Phase VC and redeploy forces not needed for
support operations.

Questions?

d. Effects. Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,” discusses the use of desired
and undesired effects in joint operation planning as a way to clarify the relationship between
objectives and tasks. Effects also relate both to the systems perspective of the operational
environment and the application of other elements of operational design. At the operational and
strategic levels, it generally is more useful for planners to understand the direct and indirect
relationships between and within the systems of the operational environment when considering
whether a direct or indirect approach is the best way to attain a desired effect. Thinking in terms
of a direct or indirect approach and desired or undesired effects can help amplify the meaning of
strategic and operational objectives, determine appropriate tasks and the best sequence of actions
to accomplish them, develop more precise assessment measures, and use other elements of
operational design more effectively.

e. Center of Gravity

(1) One of the most important tasks confronting the JFC’s staff in the operational
design process is the identification of friendly and adversary COGs. A COG is a source of moral
or physical strength, power, and resistance — what Clausewitz called “the hub of all power and
movement, on which everything depends . . . the point at which all our energies should be
directed.” A COG can be viewed as the set of characteristics, capabilities, and sources of
power from which a system derives its moral or physical strength, freedom of action, and
will to act. The COG is always linked to the objective. If the objective changes, the center of
gravity also could change. At the strategic level, a COG could be a military force, an alliance,
political or military leaders, a set of critical capabilities or functions, or national will. At the
operational level a COG often is associated with the adversary’s military capabilities — such as
a powerful element of the armed forces — but could include other capabilities in the operational
environment. Since the adversary will protect the COG, the COG invariably is found among
strengths rather than among weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Commanders consider not only the
enemy COGs, but also identify and protect their own COGs.

(2) The COG construct is useful as an analytical tool to help JFCs and staffs analyze
friendly and adversary sources of strength as well as weaknesses and vulnerabilities. This
process cannot be taken lightly, since a faulty conclusion resulting from a poor or hasty
analysis can have very serious consequences, such as the inability to achieve strategic and
operational objectives at an acceptable cost. Friendly and enemy COGs can change over
time (due to actions taken by friendly forces and the enemy reaction to those actions) and are
based on the end state, mission, and objectives as well as the adversary’s strategy. Planners must

IV-8 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

continually analyze and refine COGs. Selection of COGs is not solely a static process by the J-2 during
JIPOE. Figure IV-2 shows a number of characteristics that can be associated with a COG.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTERS OF GRAVITY

Contains many Exists at each Mostly physical

intangible elements level of war at operational
at strategic level and tactical levels

Often depends
Is a source
on factors of time
of leverage
and space

Can shift over CENTER OF Allows or

time or between GRAVITY enhances
phases (COG) freedom of action

Often intangible in May be where the

limited contingency enemy’s force is most
operations densely concentrated

Can endanger
Linked to the
May be transitory one’s
objective(s)
in nature own COGs

Figure IV-2. Characteristics of Centers of Gravity

(3) The essence of operational art lies in being able to produce the right combination of
effects in time, space, and purpose relative to a COG to neutralize, weaken, defeat, or destroy it. In
theory, this is the most direct path to mission accomplishment. However, a COG can change during the
course of an operation for a variety of reasons. For example, a COG might concern the mass of
adversary units, which has not yet formed. The COG also could change if the objective changes. For
example, during the dominate phase, the friendly operational COG may be the attacking armored
forces. However, once hostilities cease and the objective changes from defeating the adversary to
humanitarian assistance for displaced persons, the friendly operational COG may be those responding
forces that are providing relief. Given their potentially transient nature, analysis of both friendly and
adversary COGs is a continuous process throughout a joint operation.

(4) A systems perspective of the operational environment, mentioned earlier in this section,
assists identification of adversary COGs and their critical capabilities, requirements, and vulnerabilities.
In combat operations, this involves knowing an adversary’s physical and psychological strengths and
weaknesses and how the adversary organizes, fights, and makes decisions. Moreover, the JFC and
staff must understand strengths and weaknesses in other operational environment systems (political,
social, economic, infrastructure, informational, etc.) and their interaction with the military system. The

IV-9
Chapter IV

staff, under the J-2’s lead, analyzes the relevant systems in the operational environment based on
understanding strategic objectives, desired effects, and the joint force’s mission, This analysis identifies
a number of nodes — the people, facilities, individual systems, forces, information, and other components
of the system. The analysis also attempts to identify links — the behavioral, physical, or functional
relationship between nodes. Identifying nodes and their links helps the staff assess the systems’ important
capabilities and vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies the interrelationship of systems and capabilities
within or in support of a given COG. A clear understanding of these relationships will help the JFC and
staff in the identification of effective options to defeat the COG.

“One must keep the dominant characteristics of both belligerents in mind. Out of
these characteristics a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power
and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all
of our energies should be directed.”

“The first task . . . in planning for war is to identify the enemy’s centers of gravity,
and if possible, trace them back to a single one.”

Carl von Clausewitz

On War, 1832

(5) A COG typically will not be a single node in the system, but will consist of a
set of nodes and their respective links (relationships). For example, Figure IV-3 shows a
notional adversary’s strategic and operational COGs, each consisting of a set of nodes and links.
The operational COG in this example resides in the military system, while the strategic COG
focuses in the political system but overlaps with the operational COG. However, a COG that
appears entirely military on the surface often will have underlying links to key nodes in other
systems. A single node might be considered a COG as an exception, such as when the adversary
senior military leader is also the political leader and the nature of the adversary’s political and
military systems is such that the leader’s demise would cause support for the conflict by other
leaders in these systems to collapse. Also, systems are viewed differently at different levels. For
example, the CCDR might consider an adversary’s key military capability to be a single node in
the adversary’s military system, while a JTF commander who must attack this capability would
analyze it as a system of nodes and links in an effort to determine its critical capabilities and
vulnerabilities.

(6) Analysis of friendly and adversary COGs is a key step in the JIPOE process. Joint
force intelligence analysts identify adversary COGs using an understanding of the various
systems in the operational environment. The goal is to determine from which elements the
adversary derives freedom of action, physical strength (means), and the will to fight. The J-2, in
conjunction with other operational planners, then attempts to determine if the tentative or candidate
COGs truly are critical to the adversary’s strategy. This analysis is a linchpin in the planning
effort. Others on the joint force staff conduct similar analysis to identify friendly COGs. Once
COGs have been identified, JFCs and their staffs determine how to attack enemy COGs while
protecting friendly COGs. The protection of friendly strategic COGs such as public opinion and
US national capabilities typically requires efforts and capabilities beyond those of just the

IV-10 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

IDENTIFYING CENTERS OF GRAVITY

Information

Infrastructure
Social
Military

Node
Link

Operational
Center of
Gravity (COG)

Strategic Economic
COG Political

Figure IV-3. Identifying Centers of Gravity

supported CCDR. An analysis of the identified COGs in terms of critical capabilities,

requirements, and vulnerabilities is vital to this process.

JP 2-01.3, Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment, provides detailed information

on the JIPOE process as it relates to campaign planning.

KEY TERMS

critical capability — a means that is considered a crucial enabler for a center

of gravity to function as such, and is essential to the accomplishment of
the specified or assumed objective(s).

critical requirement — an essential condition, resource, and means for a

critical capability to be fully operational.

critical vulnerability — an aspect of a critical requirement, which is deficient

or vulnerable to direct or indirect attack that will create decisive or significant
effects.

(7) Understanding the relationship among the COGs not only permits but also compels greater
precision in thought and expression in operational design. Planners should analyze COGs within a

IV-11
Chapter IV

framework of three critical factors — critical capabilities, requirements, and vulnerabilities — to aid in
this understanding. Critical capabilities are those that are considered crucial enablers for a COG to
function as such, and are essential to the accomplishment of the adversary’s assumed objective(s).
Critical requirements are the conditions, resources, and means that enable a critical capability to
become fully operational. Critical vulnerabilities are those aspects or components of critical
requirements that are deficient, or vulnerable to direct or indirect attack in a manner achieving decisive or
significant results. Collectively, the terms above are referred to as critical factors. In general, a JFC
must possess sufficient operational reach and combat power or other relevant capabilities to take
advantage of an adversary’s critical vulnerabilities. Similarly, a supported commander must protect
friendly critical capabilities within the operational reach of an adversary.

(8) The most effective method for JFCs and their staffs to analyze friendly and adversary
COGs and their critical vulnerabilities is to visualize each COG’s role/function relative to each
of the various systems. For example, the leader of an adversary nation could be a strategic COG
in the military and political systems as well as a key node in the nation’s social system. Planners
also can visualize a COG as a system (nodes, links, functions, etc.) to analyze what elements
within this system protect, sustain, integrate, or enable its various elements or components. All
nodes associated with a COG are designated as key nodes. This distinction provides visibility
to these nodes in the targeting process and emphasizes their potential importance to the operation.

(9) Once the systems analysis is mature, the planners should then try to identify the
critical factors within that system. Those elements or functions that enable the COG are its
critical capabilities. Once these are identified, planners should determine the critical requirements
and critical vulnerabilities. For example, Figure IV-4 expands the COGs in Figure IV-3 to
reveal the critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical vulnerabilities of the strategic
and operational COGs.

(10) When identifying friendly and adversary critical vulnerabilities, the JFC and staff
will understandably want to focus their efforts against the critical vulnerabilities that will do the
most decisive damage to an adversary’s COG. However, in selecting those critical vulnerabilities,
planners must also compare their criticality with their accessibility, vulnerability, redundancy,
ability to recuperate, and impact on the civilian populace, then balance those factors against
friendly capabilities to affect those vulnerabilities. The JFC’s goal is to seek opportunities
aggressively to apply force against an adversary in as vulnerable an aspect as possible, and in as
many dimensions as possible. In other words, the JFC seeks to undermine the adversary’s
strength by exploiting adversary vulnerabilities, while protecting friendly vulnerabilities from
adversaries attempting to do the same.

IV-12 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

ANALYZING CRITICAL FACTORS

Armored Corps
Maneuver
Air Defense Divisions
System
(critical
capability)
Radar Corps
(critical
vulnerability) HQ

Corps
Coalition Commander
(critical Partner
vulnerability)
President
Economic
(critical
Relationship
capability)

Defense Minister

Figure IV-4. Analyzing Critical Factors

D-25 (271600Z Jan):

The XCOM J-2 has determined that the adversary’s armored corps in
the north is the operational COG, and the strategic COG is comprised of
the adversary’s president, defense minister, the armored corps commander,
and a newly identified coalition partner.

The XCOM J-2 and the 10th Army J-2 and planners, working in
collaboration, determine that conducting air defense is a critical capability
for the operational-level COG. By protecting its maneuver units from air
attack, the air defense system provides freedom of maneuver to the armored
corps. The air defense system’s critical requirements are its mobile
launchers; a sufficient supply of missiles; its command and control
capabilities; and its network of radars. Comparing these critical
requirements to friendly force capabilities, the J-2 also determines that the
air defense system’s primary weakness is its radar network. Since active
radar sites are especially vulnerable to high-speed anti-radiation missiles
against which Red forces have no effective counter, J-2 analysts deduce
that the radar network constitutes a critical vulnerability.

IV-13
Chapter IV

The J-2 collaborates with the J-5, J-3, and 10th Army planners to devise
methods of attack — both kinetic and nonkinetic — to destroy or neutralize
this critical vulnerability. This approach should ultimately open the armored
corps to attack by air, or otherwise weaken it without having to attack it
directly.

The J-2 also advises CDRXCOM of indications that Country Brown — a

neighboring country sympathetic to the adversary — unexpectedly has
agreed to support Country Red with various military resources. The J-2
believes external support represents a critical capability for the strategic
COG. Associated critical requirements are identified as the military
capabilities Country Brown is willing to provide the adversary; Country
Brown’s proximity to the adversary; well developed lines of communication;
and the proclaimed neutral or sympathetic status of other regional countries.
But Country Brown also maintains significant economic ties with the United
States, which the J-2 reasons can be exploited as a critical vulnerability if
the US can apply appropriate diplomatic and economic pressure.

(11) A proper analysis of adversary critical factors must be based on the best available
knowledge of how adversaries organize, fight, think, make decisions, and their physical and
psychological strengths and weaknesses. JFCs and their staffs must develop an understanding
of their adversaries’ capabilities and vulnerabilities, and factors that might influence an adversary
to abandon or change strategic objectives. They must also envision how friendly forces and
actions appear from the adversaries’ viewpoints. Otherwise, they may fall into the trap of ascribing
to an adversary’s particular attitudes, values, and reactions that mirror their own.

D-23 (290800Z Jan):

CDRXCOM meets with SecDef, SECSTATE, and the CIA Director in

Washington D.C. to discuss his J-2’s analysis and conclusions regarding
the strategic COG. SECSTATE agrees that economic relations between the
US and Country Brown have been good and that diplomatic relations have
been fair. The CIA Director confirms the indicators that Country Brown
intends to provide support to Red, but adds that military forces likely would
not be part of this support and that Brown leaders were sensitive to the
conflict spreading to their territory. All meeting participants agree that this
is a critical issue from the perspective of preventing this crisis from
spreading in the region.

SECSTATE agrees to work this from a diplomatic perspective, first

through a demarche delivered by the US Ambassador in Brown to Brown’s
Foreign Minister and by meeting with Brown’s Ambassador in Washington.
Follow-on efforts will target other countries in the region to bring pressure
on Brown to stay out of the conflict. SECSTATE believes that the potential
for immediate economic sanctions against Brown will help deter Brown’s
involvement. SECSTATE will also engage the UN Secretary General for
support through UN channels.

IV-14 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

CDRXCOM directs the J-5 to prepare options for military operations

against Country Brown if Brown refuses to back away from the conflict.

(12) Before solidifying COGs into the OPLAN, planners should analyze and test their
validity. The defeat, destruction, neutralization, or substantial weakening of a valid COG should
cause an adversary to change its COA or prevent an adversary from achieving its strategic
objectives. If analysis shows that this does not occur, then perhaps planners have misidentified
the COG, and they must revise their COG and critical factors analysis. The conclusions, while
critically important to the planning process itself, must be tempered with continuous evaluations
and reassessments, because derived COGs and critical vulnerabilities are subject to change at
any time during the campaign or major operation. Accordingly, JFCs and their subordinates
should be alert to circumstances during execution that may cause derived COGs and critical
vulnerabilities to change and adjust friendly plans and operations accordingly.

CDRXCOM and his staff also have considered friendly centers of gravity for
this operation. If Red attacks, the eventual military outcome is not in doubt
because of the significant disparity in Red-Blue combat capabilities. Thus,
the Blue operational-level COG is its conventional military forces in general,
and more specifically its air combat capability.

However, the operation will be more difficult if Red attacks into Gray before
US forces arrive to defend. While this is not expected, it would cause defense
of Gray to be conducted from the east part of Gray or the west part of Country
Green, rather than along the Red-Gray border. Although JFACC operations
can begin within a few hours, the lack of friendly bases within operational
reach of the JOA and the natural concealment offered by the wooded terrain
in Gray would degrade the effectiveness of air operations. Thus, the CCDR
considers the US ability to deploy sufficient ground combat forces in time
to defend a Red attack along the Red-Gray border to be a Blue critical
vulnerability.

(13) JFCs must also analyze friendly COGs and identify friendly critical vulnerabilities.
Long sea and air lines of communications (LOCs) from CONUS or supporting theaters could be
a critical vulnerability for a friendly COG. Through prior planning and coordination, commanders
can mitigate the potential impact of challenges such as the failure of foreign governments to
provide overflight clearances to US or multinational forces. A friendly COG could also be
something more intangible in nature. During the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf Conflict, for example,
Commander, US Central Command identified the coalition itself as a friendly strategic COG
and took appropriate measures to protect it, to include deployment of theater missile defense
systems. In conducting the analysis of friendly vulnerabilities, the supported commander must
decide how, when, where, and why friendly military forces are (or might become) vulnerable to
hostile actions, and then plan accordingly. The supported commander must achieve a balance
between prosecuting the main effort and protecting critical capabilities and vulnerabilities in the OA to
protect friendly COGs.

IV-15
Chapter IV

f. Decisive Points

(1) Commanders and their staffs identify decisive points to help them determine where and
how to apply friendly capabilities to exploit adversary vulnerabilities. A decisive point is a geographic
place, specific key event, critical factor, or function that, when acted upon, allows a commander to gain
a marked advantage over an adversary or contributes materially to achieving success (e.g., creating a
desired effect, achieving an objective). This can greatly influencing the outcome of an action. Decisive
points can be physical in nature, such as a constricted sea lane, a hill, a town, WMD capabilities, or an
air base; but they could include other elements such as command posts, critical boundaries, airspace, or
communications and/or intelligence nodes. In some cases, specific key events also may be decisive
points, such as attainment of air or maritime superiority, commitment of the adversary’s reserve or
opening a supply route during humanitarian operations. In still other cases, decisive points may have a
larger systemic impact, such as a node or combination of nodes which, when acted on, can substantially
affect the adversary’s information, financial, economic, or social systems.

KEY TERM

decisive point — A geographic place, specific key event, critical factor, or

function that, when acted upon, allows commanders to gain a marked
advantage over an adversary or contributes materially to achieving success.

(2) The most important decisive points can be determined from analysis of critical
factors. As part of the node-link analysis associated with a systems perspective, understanding
the relationship between a COG’s critical capabilities, requirements, and vulnerabilities can
illuminate direct and indirect approaches to the COG. It is likely that most of these critical
factors will be decisive points, which should then be further addressed in the planning process.

(3) There may often be cases where the JFC’s combat power and other capabilities
will be insufficient to rapidly affect the adversary’s COGs with a single action. In this situation,
the supported JFC must selectively focus a series of actions against the adversary’s critical
vulnerabilities until the cumulative effects of these actions lead to mission success. Just as a
combined arms approach is often the best way to attack an enemy field force in the military
system, attacking several vulnerable points in other systems may offer an effective method to
influence an enemy COG. The indirect approach may offer the most effective method to exploit
adversary critical vulnerabilities through the identification of decisive points. Although decisive
points are not COGs, they are the keys to attacking or protecting them.

(4) Although OAs may have numerous decisive points, only a few will truly have operational
or even strategic significance relative to an adversary’s COGs. The art of identifying decisive points is a
critical part of operational design. Normally, there are far more decisive points in a given OA than can
be attacked, seized, retained, or controlled with the forces and capabilities available. Accordingly,
planners should study and analyze potential decisive points and determine which of them offer the best
opportunity to attack the adversary’s COGs indirectly, extend friendly operational reach, or enable the
application of friendly forces and capabilities. The commander then designates the most important
decisive points for further planning and allocates sufficient resources to produce the desired effects

IV-16 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

against them. Afterward, the supported JFC should assign sufficient forces and assets for attacking,
seizing, retaining, or controlling these decisive points.

D-23 (291900Z Jan):

As CDRXCOM is meeting in Washington, the XCOM J-5 reviews the J-2’s

analysis and tentatively identifies a number of decisive points (DP) from
the theater-strategic perspective in preparation for an upcoming
collaborative session with component planners. The J-5 knows that they
will identify other decisive points relevant to their tasks and that there may
be some overlap.

While the JOA will contain many potential decisive points, the focus of
the planning session will be on those that address COGs and enable
transition between phases of the operation. Among a number of potential
decisive points, the J-5 identifies the following as important to the planning
session’s focus:

• Event DPs: — Initial JFACC operations (enable Phase IB)

— Reception, staging, onward movement, and
integration of IV MEF (enables Phase IIB)
— Diplomatic efforts against Country Brown
(success prevents regional escalation)
— Red leader surrenders (affects timing of
transition to Phase IV)

• System DPs: — Red armor corps air defense (neutralization

enables direct attack of operational COG)
— Red armor corps (neutralization of COG enables
Phase IIB)

• Geographic DPs: — Two mountain passes on Red-Gray border

(control enables Blue defense (Phases IB and
IIA)
— Three bridges on south line of communication
(LOC) (control enables control of south LOC
and start of Phase IIIB)

NOTE: These DPs are not all-inclusive, but representative of DPs that could
be identified in an operation such as this.

(5) Decisive points that assist commanders to gain or maintain the initiative are crucial. In
direct combat with an adversary, controlling these decisive points in the attack helps commanders gain
freedom of operational maneuver, maintain the momentum of the attack, and sustain the initiative. If a
defender controls such a point, it can help exhaust the attacker’s momentum and facilitate the defender’s
counterattack.

g. Direct versus Indirect Approach

IV-17
Chapter IV

(1) The essence of operational art lies in determining how to allocate available friendly resources
against an adversary’s COGs to achieve friendly strategic and operational objectives. There are three
approaches to accomplish this, so JFCs and their staffs will have to decide between them, given the
specific circumstances. The decision facing the commander is whether to attack the COG directly,
indirectly, or through combination of direct and indirect approach (see Figure IV-5).

(2) In theory, direct attacks against adversary COGs resulting in their neutralization or
destruction provide the most direct path to victory — if this can be done in a prudent manner (as defined

DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT APPROACH

“Where direct attacks against enemy COGs mean attacking into an

opponent’s strength, JFCs should seek an indirect approach until
conditions are established that permit successful direct attacks.”
Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations

Joint Center of Gravity (COG)

Forces

Command and
Control Air and Missile
Defense
Line of
JFC joint force commander
Communications

Figure IV- 5. Direct Versus Indirect Approach

by the military and political dynamics of the moment). Where direct attacks against adversary COGs
mean attacking an opponent’s strength, JFCs must weigh the risk appropriately to determine if friendly
forces possess the power to attack with acceptable risk. In the event that a direct attack is not a
reasonable solution, JFCs should seek an indirect approach until conditions are established
that permit successful direct attacks. In this manner, the adversary’s derived vulnerabilities can
offer indirect pathways to gain leverage over its COGs. For example, if the operational COG is a large
adversary force, the joint force may attack it indirectly by isolating it from its C2, severing its LOCs
(including resupply), and defeating or degrading its protection functions, such as air defenses and indirect
fire capability. In this way, JFCs employ a synchronized and integrated combination of operations to
weaken adversary COGs indirectly by attacking traditional weaknesses (e.g., seams and flanks) and
requirements (e.g., military morale and public opinion), which are sufficiently vulnerable.

IV-18 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

(3) In some situations, the direct approach may entail an attack focused on the bulk of the
adversary’s forces with the explicit aim of destroying or annihilating those forces in the shortest possible
time. When one’s own combat power is overwhelming or the adversary force is deemed particularly
vulnerable, a direct approach can sometimes be the most practical and effective way to decisively attack
the adversary’s COGs. However, this approach often depends on the situation.

(4) An adversary’s COGs may not be open to direct attack because of their inherent
strength. Their key elements may be too strong, too well protected or concealed or too abstract
or intangible in nature. They may be beyond the operational reach of the joint force, or operational
limitations may preclude a direct attack on an adversary’s COGs. In these cases, the JFC should
seek an indirect approach until conditions exist that permit successful direct attacks. An analysis
of an adversary’s critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical vulnerabilities can offer
indirect approaches to attacking an adversary’s COGs.

(a) At the strategic level of war, indirect methods of defeating the adversary’s
COG could include depriving the adversary of allies or friends, emplacing sanctions, weakening
the national will to fight by undermining the public support for war, and breaking up cohesion of
adversary alliances or coalitions.

(b) At the operational level of war, the most common indirect method of defeating
an adversary’s COGs is to conduct a series of attacks against selected aspects of the adversary’s
combat power. For example, the supported JFC may sequence combat actions to force an
adversary to divide its forces in theater, destroy the adversary’s reserves or elements of the
adversary’s base of operations, or prevent or hinder the deployment of the adversary’s major
forces or reinforcements into the OA. Indirect methods of attacking the adversary’s COGs
(through critical vulnerabilities) could entail reducing the adversary’s operational reach, isolating
the force from its C2, and destroying or suppressing key protection functions such as air defense.

h. Lines of Operations

(1) As JFCs visualize the design of the operation, they may use several LOOs to help visualize
the intended progress of the joint force toward achieving operational and strategic objectives. LOOs
define the orientation of the force in time and space or purpose in relation to an adversary or objective.
Commanders may describe the operation along LOOs that are physical, logical, or both. Logical and
physical LOOs are not mutually exclusive and JFCs often combine them. Normally, joint operations
require commanders to synchronize activities along multiple and complementary LOOs working through
a series of military strategic and operational objectives to attain the military end state.

IV-19
Chapter IV

KEY TERM

line of operations — 1. A logical line that connects actions on nodes and

decisive points related in time and purpose with an objective(s). 2. A
physical line that defines the interior or exterior orientation of the force in
relation to the enemy or that connects actions on nodes and decisive points
related in time and space to an objective(s).

(2) There are many possible ways to graphically depict LOOs, which can assist planners
to visualize the joint operation from beginning to end and prepare the OPLAN or OPORD
accordingly. From the perspective of unified action, there are many diplomatic, economic, and
informational activities that can affect the sequencing and conduct of military operations. Planners
should consider depicting relevant actions or events of the other instruments of national power
on their LOOs diagrams.

(3) A physical LOO (see Figure IV-6) connects a series of decisive points over time
that lead to control of a geographic objective or defeat of an enemy force. Commanders use
physical LOOs to connect the force with its base of operations and objectives when positional
reference to the enemy is a factor.

SAMPLE PHYSICAL LINE OF OPERATIONS

Establish and Secure and

Secure Secure SECURE
Operate Operate Seize Key
Entry Routes to CAPITAL-
Intermediate Air & Sea Terrain
Points Capitaltown
Bases Ports TOWN

Objective
Actions on Decisive Points and/or Nodes

Figure IV-6. Sample Physical Line of Operations

(a) Physical LOOs may be either interior or exterior. A force operates on interior
lines when its operations diverge from a central point and when it is therefore closer to separate
adversary forces than the latter are to one another. Interior lines benefit a weaker force by
allowing it to shift the main effort laterally more rapidly than the adversary. A force operates on
exterior lines when its operations converge on the adversary. Successful operations on exterior lines
require a stronger or more mobile force, but offer the opportunity to encircle and annihilate a weaker or
less mobile opponent. Figure IV-6 depicts a physical LOO, which is oriented on geographic decisive
points leading to securing Capitaltown, the objective of Phase IIIB in the vignette.

(b) Assuring strategic mobility enhances exterior LOOs by providing the JFC greater
freedom of maneuver. The relevance of interior and exterior physical lines depends on the relationship
of time and distance between the opposing forces. Although an adversary force may have interior lines

IV-20 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

with respect to the friendly force, this advantage disappears if the friendly force is more agile and
operates at a higher operational tempo. Conversely, if a smaller force maneuvers to a position between
larger but less agile adversary forces, the friendly force may be able to defeat them in detail before they
can react effectively.

(c) A joint operation may have one or multiple physical LOOs. A single line of
operations has the advantage of concentrating forces and simplifying planning. Multiple LOOs, on the
other hand, increase flexibility and create opportunities for success. Multiple LOOs also make it difficult
for an adversary to determine the objectives of the campaign or major operation, forcing the adversary
to disperse resources to defend against multiple threats. The decision to operate on multiple lines will
depend to a great extent on the availability of resources.

(4) JFCs use logical LOOs to visualize and describe the operation when positional
reference to an enemy or adversary has less relevance. In contrast to physical LOOs, a logical
LOO focuses more on depicting a logical arrangement of objectives, effects, or tasks. Logical
LOOs typically can link multiple decisive points with the logic of purpose to defeat an enemy or
achieve an objective. This situation is common in many joint operations, particularly from the
theater-strategic perspective. In a linkage between objectives and forces, only the logical linkage
of LOOs may be evident. Logical LOOs are particularly useful when working with interagency
and multinational partners in either a supporting or supported capacity. For example, a JFC can
reflect the tasks and objectives of agencies along separate LOOs and relate these to tasks and
objectives along the military LOOs. Logical LOOs also help commanders visualize how military
means can support nonmilitary instruments of national power and vice versa.

(5) Figure IV-7 shows four notional logical LOOs from the CCDR’s perspective based
on an arrangement of tasks necessary to accomplish objectives. A LOO depiction at this level
can help the CCDR and staff discuss the relationship and status of key tasks and “drill down” on
specific tasks for details as required.

(a) Figure IV-7 is a notional example based on the vignette, and portrays only a
small sample of what would appear on an actual LOO diagram. This example shows a LOO
with representative tasks for each instrument of national power. Actual LOOs would be much
more detailed.

(b) The LOOs appear somewhat independent in this figure, but actually would be
closely interconnected and synchronized in unified action toward a common purpose — the
accomplishment of national strategic objectives. The dashed arrows between the LOOs reflect
this interaction. In some cases, a LOO could portray related military, diplomatic, informational,
and economic decisive points, tasks, or effects along a single line.

(c) While each LOO appears to portray tasks in sequence, an expanded view would
actually show many tasks occurring simultaneously and would reflect the interdependencies.

IV-21
Chapter IV

SAMPLE LOGICAL LINES OF OPERATIONS

PHASE I PHASE V
National
D Engage Deliver Deliver demarche Establish Establish
Strategic
I United demarche to to BROWN operational UN task
P Nations RED Leader Leader DOS team force Objectives
L
Help reinstate
Begin Reinforce former Red
I psychological strategic PA and PSYOPS leader
N operations on communication messages to Engage RED
F RED objectives promote stability media Degrade Red
O and regional
terrorist
M capabilities
I
L Establish Neutralize Destroy Control Begin Establish
Maintain
I Viable RED corps RED South LOC antiterrorism Secure JTF
sovereignty of
T defense air defense Corps bridges operations Capitaltown SUPPORT
Gray and Green
A
R
Y Degrade Red’s
offensive
military
E Threat of Aid to GRAY, capabilities
C Sanctions sanctions GREEN,
O against RED against BROWN and RED
Support post-
N conflict
operations
DOS Department of State JTF joint task force LOC line of communications

Figure IV-7. Sample Logical Lines of Operations

(d) Other potential alternatives to the instruments of national power for organizing LOOs
include the following: by organization (e.g., joint force air component commander, JFLCC); by objective
(i.e., an arrangement of tasks, decisive points, or effects oriented at achieving a specific objective); and
by function (e.g., maintain security, develop governance, facilitate civil administration). A subordinate
JTF or component commander’s perspective and focus will be different from that of the CCDR, and
the LOO methods will vary. Operational-level and tactical organizations typically will focus more on the
specific application of military capabilities, even when in support of civil authorities. However, the
military commander’s understanding of the purpose, objectives, and activities of the civilian and
multinational counterparts is essential to promoting unified action.

D-12 (171200Z Jan):

As the J-5 continues planning, he graphically arranges tasks as he

expects them to occur in time according to the operation’s phases approved
by CDRXCOM (see Figure IV-7). These are predominantly logical lines of
operations (LOOs), since the J-5 is not attempting to show the progression
of forces along geographical points.

IV-22 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

The J-5’s diagram shows four primary LOOs – one for each instrument
of national power. This helps the combatant command and component
planners maintain visibility of actions or events along those lines, which
could affect current or future military actions. The most significant of these
at this point is the diplomatic effort to dissuade Country Brown from
supporting Country Red. If Brown decides to support Red, this will
complicate the planning process and signal an escalation of military
operations in the region. The likely result will be greater regional instability
and longer-term commitment of US forces. CDRXCOM has directed the J-5
to plan for the possibility of operations against Brown.

NOTE: Figure IV-7 shows a representative sample from the J-5’s LOOs
graphic. The complete diagram would reflect a much larger number of
activities for each of the four lines, and particularly for the military line.

i. Operational Reach

(1) Operational reach is the distance and duration across which a unit can successfully
employ military capabilities. Reach is fundamentally linked to culmination, the point in time at
which the force can no longer attack or defend successfully. Although reach may be constrained
or limited by the geography in and around the OA, it may be extended through forward positioning
of capabilities and resources, increasing the range and effects of weapon systems, leveraging
HNS and theater support contracting support, and maximizing the throughput efficiency of the
distribution architecture.

(2) The concept of operational reach is inextricably tied to the concept of lines of
operations. The geography surrounding and separating adversaries influences operational reach.
Locating forces, reserves, bases, pre-positioned equipment sets, and logistics forward extends
operational reach. Operational reach is also affected by increasing the range of weapons, and by
improving transportation availability and the effectiveness of LOCs and throughput capability.
Some assets — such as air, space, and information operations — maintain a responsive global
capability that significantly extends operational reach. Nevertheless, for any given campaign
or major operation, there is a finite range beyond which predominant elements of the
joint force cannot prudently operate or maintain effective operations.

(3) Basing, in the broadest sense, is an indispensable part of operational art, since it is tied to
the concept of LOOs and directly affects operational reach. Whether from overseas locations, sea-
based platforms, or CONUS, basing directly affects the combat power and other capabilities that a
joint force can generate. In particular, the arrangement and positioning of advanced bases (often in
austere, rapidly emplaced configurations) underwrites the ability of the joint force to shield its components
from adversary action and deliver symmetric and asymmetric blows. It also directly influences the
combat power and other capabilities the joint force can generate because of its impact on such critical
factors as sortie or resupply rates. Political and diplomatic considerations can often affect basing decisions.

IV-23
Chapter IV

(4) US force basing options span the spectrum from permanently based forces to temporary
sea basing during crisis response in littoral areas of instability. Bases (including the flexible and responsive
capability of sea basing) are typically selected to be within friendly operational reach of the adversary.
To that end, theater assessments must determine whether sufficient infrastructure and diplomatic support
exist or can be obtained to support the operational and sustainment requirements of deployed forces,
and where they can be assured of some degree of security from adversary attacks. Determining where
to locate bases poses certain challenges for planners. Recognizing the critical role basing plays during
force projection, potential adversaries may try to develop “anti-access” strategies designed to
prevent the build up and sustainment of forces in theater. One such strategy could be a preemptive
attack against US forces located outside the adversary’s national boundaries, so planners must also
consider the risk of placing US combat capabilities within the adversary’s operational reach. Planners
must determine how to mitigate an adversary’s efforts to deny access to the theater and its infrastructure.

j. Simultaneity and Depth

(1) Simultaneity refers to the simultaneous application of military and nonmilitary

power against the enemy’s key capabilities and sources of strength. Simultaneity in joint
force operations contributes directly to an enemy’s collapse by placing more demands on enemy
forces and functions than can be handled. This does not mean that all elements of the joint force
are employed with equal priority or that even all elements of the joint force will be employed. It
refers specifically to the concept of attacking appropriate enemy forces and functions in multiple
domains (air, land, maritime, and space) in such a manner as to cause failure of their moral and
physical cohesion.

(2) Simultaneity also refers to the concurrent conduct of operations at the tactical,
operational, and strategic levels. Tactical commanders fight engagements and battles,
understanding their relevance to the OPLAN. JFCs set the conditions for battles within a major
operation or campaign to achieve military strategic and operational objectives. GCCs integrate
theater strategy and operational art. At the same time, they remain acutely aware of the impact
of tactical events. Because of the inherent interrelationships between the various levels of war,
commanders cannot be concerned only with events at their respective echelon, but must understand
how their actions contribute to the military end state.

(3) The evolution of warfare and advances in technology have continuously expanded
the depth of operations. US joint forces can rapidly maneuver over great distances and strike
with precision. Joint force operations should be conducted across the full breadth and depth of
the OA, creating competing and simultaneous demands on adversary commanders and resources.
The concept of depth seeks to overwhelm the enemy throughout the OA, creating competing
and simultaneous demands on enemy commanders and resources and contributing to the
enemy’s speedy defeat. Depth applies to time as well as geography. Operations extended in
depth shape future conditions and can disrupt an opponent’s decision cycle. Strategic attack, interdiction,
and some IO capabilities are applications of depth in joint operations. Operations in depth contribute to
protection of the force by destroying adversary potential before its capabilities can be realized or employed.

IV-24 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

(4) Simultaneity and depth place a premium on shared, common awareness of the operational
environment. Consequently, JFCs should exploit the full capabilities of the joint force and supporting
capabilities to develop and maintain a comprehensive, universal common operational picture (COP).

k. Timing and Tempo

(1) The joint force should conduct operations at a tempo and point in time that best
exploits friendly capabilities and inhibits the adversary. With proper timing, JFCs can dominate
the action, remain unpredictable, and operate beyond the adversary’s ability to react. For example,
Germany’s 1940 attack on France combined the speed, range, and flexibility of aircraft with the
power and mobility of armor to conduct operations at a pace that surprised and overwhelmed French
commanders, disrupting their forces and operations.

(2) The tempo of warfare has increased over time as technological advancements and
innovative doctrines have been applied to military requirements. While in many situations JFCs
may elect to maintain an operational tempo that stretches the capabilities of both friendly and
adversary forces, on other occasions JFCs may elect to conduct operations at a reduced pace.
During selected phases of a campaign, JFCs could reduce the pace of operations, frustrating
adversary commanders while buying time to build a decisive force or tend to other priorities in
the OA such as relief to displaced persons. During other phases, JFCs could conduct high-
tempo operations designed specifically to overwhelm adversary defensive capabilities. Assuring
strategic mobility preserves the JFCs ability to control tempo by allowing freedom of theater
access.

(3) JFCs carefully select which capabilities of the joint force to employ and consider
the associated timing of their application. While JFCs may have substantial capabilities available,
they selectively integrate and synchronize their application in time, space, and purpose based on
the timing required to attain a desired effect. Defining priorities assists in the timing of operations.
Although some operations of the joint force can achieve near-immediate impact, JFCs may elect
to delay their application until the contributions of other elements can be integrated and
synchronized.

l. Forces and Functions

(1) Commanders and planners can design campaigns and operations that focus on
defeating either adversary forces, functions, or a combination of both. Typically, JFCs structure
operations to attack both adversary forces and functions concurrently to create the greatest possible
friction between friendly and adversary forces and capabilities. These types of operations are
especially appropriate when friendly forces enjoy technological and/or numerical superiority over an
opponent.

(2) JFCs can focus on destroying and disrupting critical adversary functions such as C2,
logistics, and air and missile defense. Attack of an adversary’s functions normally is intended to destroy
the adversary’s balance, thereby creating vulnerabilities to be exploited. The direct effect of destroying
or disrupting critical adversary functions can create the indirect effects of uncertainty, confusion, and

IV-25
Chapter IV

even panic in adversary leadership and forces and may contribute directly to the collapse of adversary
capability and will. When assessing whether or not functional attack should be the principal design
concept; JFCs should evaluate several variables such as time required to cripple the adversary’s critical
functions, time available to the JFC, the adversary’s current actions, and likely responses to such actions.

m. Leverage

(1) In joint operations, leverage is a relative advantage in combat power and/or

other circumstances against the adversary across one or more domains (air, land, sea, and
space) and/or the information environment sufficient to exploit that advantage. JP 1, Joint
Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, states that leverage is “the centerpiece of joint
operational art.” Leverage allows JFCs to impose their will on the adversary, increase the
adversary’s dilemma, and maintain the initiative.

(2) JFCs gain decisive advantage over the adversary through leverage. Leverage
can be achieved in a variety of ways. Asymmetrical actions that pit joint force strengths against
adversary vulnerabilities and maneuver in time and space can provide decisive advantage. Synergy
from the concentration and integration of joint force actions also provides JFCs with decisive
advantage. A principal JFC responsibility is to assess continuously whether command
relationships between components enhance to the fullest extent fighting assistance from and to
each element of the joint force. Support relationships afford an effective means to weight (and
ensure unity of command for) various operations, each component typically receiving and
providing support at the same time. The potentially large number of such relationships requires
the close attention of both JFCs and their components.

(3) Force interaction with regard to adversary forces is another way for JFCs to achieve
concentration in the various dimensions. JFCs arrange symmetrical and asymmetrical actions
to take advantage of friendly strengths and adversary vulnerabilities and to preserve freedom of
action for future operations. The history of joint operations highlights the enormous lethality of
asymmetrical operations and the great operational sensitivity to such threats. Asymmetrical
operations are particularly effective when applied against adversary forces not postured for
immediate tactical battle but instead operating in more vulnerable aspects — operational
deployment and/or movement, extended logistic activity (including rest and refitting), or
mobilization and training (including industrial production). Thus, JFCs must aggressively seek
opportunities to apply asymmetrical force against an adversary in as vulnerable an aspect as
possible — air attacks against adversary ground formations in convoy (e.g., the air and SOF
interdiction operations against German attempts to reinforce its forces in Normandy), naval air
attacks against troop transports (e.g., US air attacks against Japanese surface reinforcement of
Guadalcanal), and land operations against adversary naval, air, or missile bases (e.g., allied
maneuver in Europe in 1944 to reduce German submarine bases and V-1 and V-2 launching sites).
There are literally dozens of potential modes of attack to be considered as JFCs plan the application of
conventional and unconventional forces and capabilities against an adversary.

(4) As a final part of force interaction, JFCs must take action to protect or shield all
elements of the joint force from adversary symmetrical and asymmetrical action. This function

IV-26 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

of protection has particular relevance in joint warfare as JFCs seek to reduce the vulnerability of their
forces and enhance their own freedom of action. Full-spectrum superiority, isolation of the adversary,
and attack of adversary vulnerabilities can contribute to joint force leverage.

(5) While leverage in combat operations often focuses at the operational level, GCCs
can influence theater-strategic leverage by their collaboration with other US and multinational
agencies. Collaboration and coordination during planning with these agencies can reveal options
using other instruments of national power that could achieve strategic objectives and leverage
against the adversary with less risk and requirement for combat operations.

n. Balance

(1) Balance refers to the appropriate mix of forces and capabilities within the
joint force as well as to the nature and timing of operations. Balance is the maintenance of
the force, its capabilities, and its operations in such a manner as to contribute to freedom of
action and responsiveness. JFCs designate priority efforts and establish appropriate command
relationships to assist in maintaining the balance of the force.

(2) JFCs strive to maintain friendly force balance while aggressively seeking to disrupt
an adversary’s balance by striking with powerful blows from unexpected directions and pressing
the fight. IO, special operations, interdiction, and maneuver all converge to confuse, demoralize,
and destroy the opponent. Denial of adversary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and
target acquisition activities contributes to the protection of friendly forces. Even as the joint
force defeats one adversary force, it prepares to turn and strike another. High-tempo joint
operations set the conditions for battle. JFCs must prepare to shift as conditions change and new
challenges are presented. Through continuous planning and wargaming, the commander strives
never to be without options.

(3) Preserving the responsiveness of component capabilities is central to operational

art. Combinations of operations and organization of the joint force should maintain or expand
force responsiveness, not inhibit it. Decentralization of authority can contribute to responsiveness
by reducing the distance in time and space between decision makers and ongoing operations.

o. Anticipation

(1) Anticipation is key to effective planning. JFCs must consider what might happen and
look for the signs that may bring the possible event to pass. During execution, JFCs should remain alert
for the unexpected and for opportunities to exploit the situation. They continually gather information by
personally observing and communicating with higher headquarters, subordinates, allies, coalition members,
and other organizations in the OA. JFCs may avoid surprise by gaining and maintaining the initiative at
all levels of command and throughout the operational area, thus forcing the adversary to react rather than
initiate; and by thoroughly and continuously wargaming to identify probable adversary reactions to joint
force actions. JFCs also should realize the effects of operations and associated consequences on the
adversary, interagency and multinational partners, and noncombatants and prepare for their results.

IV-27
Chapter IV

(2) Shared common understanding of the operational environment aids commanders and
their staffs in anticipating opportunities and challenges. Knowledge of friendly capabilities; adversary
capabilities, intentions, and likely COAs; and the location, activities, and status of dislocated civilians
enables commanders to focus joint efforts where they can best, and most directly, contribute to achieving
military objectives.

(3) JIPOE assists JFCs in defining likely or potential adversary COAs, as well as the
indicators that suggest the adversary has embarked on a specific COA. As such, JIPOE
significantly contributes to a JFC’s ability to anticipate and exploit opportunities.

(4) JIPOE is a process that enables JFCs and their staffs to visualize adversary capabilities
and potential COAs across all dimensions of the operational environment. In stability operations, the
intelligence operation must help to collect — then fuse — political, criminal, economic, linguistic,
demographic, ethnic, psychological, and other information regarding conditions and forces that influence
the society. This process, combined with the COP, other information, and intelligence products provides
the JFC with the tools necessary to achieve situational awareness. The COP is produced by using many
different products to include the operational pictures of lower, lateral, and higher echelons. Liaison
teams to the JFC from the national intelligence agencies can provide the staff a wealth of information for
the COP — including advanced geospatial intelligence products tailored to mission-planning, navigation,
and targeting needs of the CCDR.

For additional guidance on JIPOE, refer to JP 2-01.3, Intelligence Preparation of the Operational
Environment.

(5) Anticipation is not without risk. Commanders and staff officers that tend to lean
forward in anticipation of what they expect to encounter are more susceptible to deception
efforts by an opponent. Therefore, commanders and their staffs should carefully consider all
available information upon which decisions are being based. Where possible, multiple or
redundant sources of information should be employed to reduce risk in the decision-making
process.

p. Synergy

(1) JFCs employ conventional and unconventional forces and capabilities, as well as
the resources of other governmental agencies when made available, across the range of military
operations in a synchronized and integrated fashion, resulting in greater combat power and
operational effectiveness through synergistic action. Further, JFCs seek combinations of forces
and actions to achieve concentration in various domains, all culminating in achieving the assigned
objective(s) in the shortest time possible and with minimal casualties. Additionally, JFCs not only attack
the adversary’s physical capabilities, but also the adversary’s morale and will.

(2) In today’s joint, multinational, and, interagency operating environment, it is

impossible to accurately view the contributions of any individual organization, capability, or the
domains in which they operate in isolation from all others. Each may be critical to the success of

IV-28 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

the joint force, and each has certain capabilities that cannot be duplicated by other types of forces.
Given the appropriate circumstances, any element of combat power, and nonmilitary capabilities in
some circumstances, can be dominant — and even decisive — in certain aspects of an operation or
phase of a campaign, and each element can support or be supported by other elements. Their contributions
will vary over time with the nature of the threat and other strategic, operational, and tactical circumstances.
The challenge for supported JFCs is to integrate and synchronize the wide range of capabilities at their
disposal into joint operations.

(3) The synergy achieved by integrating and synchronizing the actions of conventional
and unconventional forces and capabilities in joint operations and in multiple domains enables
JFCs to maximize available capabilities and minimize potential seams or vulnerabilities. JFCs
are especially suited to develop joint synergy given the multiple unique and complementary capabilities
available in joint forces.

(4) The synergy of the joint force depends in large part on a shared understanding of
the operational situation. JFCs integrate and synchronize operations in a manner that applies
force from different dimensions to shock, disrupt, and defeat opponents. The JFC’s vision of
how operations will be conducted includes not only how to arrange operations but also a clear
understanding of the end state.

KEY TERM

culminating point — The point at which a force no longer has the capability
to continue its form of operations, offense or defense. For the offense, the
point at which effectively continuing the attack is no longer possible and
the force must consider reverting to a defensive posture or attempting an
operational pause. For the defense, the point at which effective
counteroffensive action is no longer possible.

q. Culmination

(1) Culmination has both offensive and defensive application. In the offense, the
culminating point is the point in time and space at which an attacker’s combat power no longer
exceeds that of the defender. Here the attacker greatly risks counterattack and defeat and continues
the attack only at great peril. Success in the attack at all levels is to secure the objective before
reaching culmination. A defender reaches culmination when the defending force no longer
has the capability to go on the counteroffensive or defend successfully. Success in the defense is to draw
the attacker to offensive culmination, then conduct an offensive to expedite the adversary’s defensive
culmination. During stability operations, culmination may result from the erosion of national will, decline
of popular support, questions concerning legitimacy or restraint, or lapses in protection leading to excessive
casualties.

(2) The supported JFC must ensure that forces and assets arrive at the right times and places
to support the campaign and that sufficient resources will be available when needed in the later stages of
the campaign. This is a key point, because sustainment is a significant aspect of the campaign. Integration

IV-29
Chapter IV

and synchronization of logistics with combat operations can forestall culmination and help commanders
control the tempo of their operations. At both tactical and operational levels, theater logistic planners
forecast the drain on resources associated with conducting operations over extended distance and time.
They respond by generating enough military resources at the right times and places to enable their
commanders to achieve military strategic and operational objectives before reaching their culminating
points. If the commanders cannot generate these resources, they should revise their CONOPS.

r. Arranging Operations

(1) JFCs must determine the best arrangement of joint force and component operations to
accomplish the assigned tasks and joint force mission. This arrangement often will be a combination of
simultaneous and sequential operations to achieve full-spectrum superiority and the end state conditions
with the least cost in personnel and other resources. Commanders consider a variety of factors when
determining this arrangement including geography of the OA, available strategic lift, changes in command
structure, force protection, distribution and sustainment capabilities, adversary reinforcement capabilities,
and public opinion. Thinking about the best arrangement helps determine the tempo of activities in time,
space, and purpose.

(2) A timely and accurate TPFDD is important. However, the dynamic nature of
modern military operations requires adaptability concerning the arrangement of military
capabilities in time, space, and purpose. During force projection, for example, a rapidly changing
adversary situation or other aspects of the operational environment may cause the commander
to alter the planned arrangement of operations even as forces are deploying. Therefore, in-
transit visibility and theater asset visibility are critical to maintaining flexibility. The arrangement
that the commander chooses should not foreclose future options.

(3) The sustainment function is crucial to arranging operations and must be

planned and executed as a joint responsibility. Among many considerations, JFCs and their
staffs must think about logistic bases, LOCs, location, potential interagency and multinational
support requirements, and security factors as they relate to current and future operations. They
also must define priorities for services, support, and common-user logistic functions and
responsibilities, to include designation of integrators for base operating support and contracting
coordination. Essential measures include the optimized use or reallocation of available resources
and prevention or elimination of redundant facilities and/or overlapping functions among the
Service component commands. In any operation where significant reliance on contracted support
is anticipated, the JFC and Service component commanders must ensure the requisite contract
planning is completed and appropriate controls/guidance are in place in accordance with DOD
Instructions 3020.37, Continuation of Essential DOD Contract Services During Crises, and
3020.41, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the US Armed Forces.

(4) Phases. Phasing is a way to view and conduct a complex joint operation in
manageable parts. The main purpose of phasing is to integrate and synchronize related activities,
thereby enhancing flexibility and unity of effort during execution. Reaching the end state often
requires arranging a major operation or campaign in several phases. Consequently, operational
design provides for related phases implemented over time. Phases in an OPLAN are sequential,

IV-30 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

but during execution there will often be some simultaneous and overlapping execution of the activities
within the phases. In a campaign, each phase can represent a single major operation, while in a major
operation a phase normally consists of several subordinate operations or a series of related activities.
See paragraph 6, “Phasing,” in this chapter for a more detailed discussion of phasing.

(5) Branches and Sequels. Many OPLANs require adjustment beyond the initial
stages of the operation. Consequently, JFCs build flexibility into their plans by developing
branches and sequels to preserve freedom of action in rapidly changing conditions. They are
primarily used for changing deployments or direction of movement and accepting or declining
combat. Branches and sequels directly relate to the phasing construct.

(a) Branches are options often built into the basic plan. They typically provide
different ways or sets of means to accomplish the existing objective of an ongoing operation.
Such branches could change the main and supporting efforts, shift priorities, change command
relationships, or change the very nature of the joint operation itself. Branches add flexibility to
plans by anticipating situations that could alter the basic plan. Such situations could be a result
of adversary action, availability of friendly capabilities or resources, or even a change in the
weather or season within the OA.

KEY TERMS

branch — A contingency option built into the basic plan. A branch is used
for changing the mission, orientation, or direction of movement of a force
to aid success of the operation based on anticipated events, opportunities,
or disruptions caused by enemy actions and reactions. It answers the
question, “What if . . .?”

sequel — A major operation that follows the current operation. Plans for a
sequel are based on the possible outcomes (success, stalemate, or defeat)
associated with the current operation. It answers the question, “What’s
next?”

(b) Sequels anticipate and plan for subsequent operations based on the
possible outcomes of the current operation — victory, defeat, or stalemate. For every
action or major operation that does not accomplish a strategic or operational objective, there has
to be a sequel for each possible outcome, such as “win, lose, draw, or win big.” Although phases
typically overlap, they can be viewed as the sequels to the basic plan.

(c) Once JFC’s and their staffs have determined possible branches and sequels as
far in advance as practicable within each phase, they must now determine what or where the
decision points (not to be confused with decisive points) should be. Such decision points are
often represented by battles or engagements that, despite everything being done to anticipate
their outcome, can be either lost or won. Each branch from a decision point requires different
actions, and each action demands various follow-up actions, such as sequels or potential
sequels.

IV-31
Chapter IV

“To be practical, any plan must take account of the enemy’s power to frustrate it;
the best chance of overcoming such obstruction is to have a plan that can be
easily varied to fit the circumstances met; to keep such adaptability, while still
keeping the initiative, the best way to operate is along a line which offers alternative
objectives.”

B.H. Liddell Hart

(6) Operational Pause

(a) The supported JFC should aggressively conduct operations to obtain and maintain
the initiative. However, there may be certain circumstances when this is not feasible because of logistic
constraints or force shortfalls. Therefore, operational pauses may be required when a major
operation may be reaching the end of its sustainability. As such, operational pauses can provide
a safety valve to avoid potential culmination, while the JFC retains the initiative in other ways. However,
if an operational pause is properly executed in relation to one’s own culminating point, the adversary will
not have sufficient combat power to threaten the joint force or regain the initiative during the pause.

(b) Operational pauses are also useful tools for obtaining the proper
synchronization of sustainment and operations. Normally, operational pauses are planned to
regenerate combat power or augment sustainment and forces for the next phase, although this
will result in extending the duration of a major operation or campaign. Moreover, properly
planned and sequenced operational pauses will ensure that the JFC has sufficient forces
and assets to accomplish strategic or operational objectives. However, planners must guard
against cutting the margin of sustainment and combat effectiveness too thin. Executing a pause
before it is necessary provides for flexibility in the timing of the pause and allows for its early
termination under urgent conditions without unduly endangering the future effectiveness of the
force.

(c) The primary drawback to operational pauses is that they risk forfeiture
of strategic or operational initiative. It is therefore incumbent upon the JFC to plan on as few
operational pauses as possible, if any, and consistent with the CONOPS, to alternate pauses and
tempo between components of the force. In this manner, a major portion of the joint force can maintain
pressure on the adversary through offensive actions while other components pause.

6. Phasing

a. Purpose. Arranging operations is an element of operational design, and phasing is a

key aspect of this element. Phasing is a useful tool for any type of operation, from those that
require large-scale combat to operations such as disaster relief, noncombatant evacuation, and
peacekeeping. For example, campaigns and single major operations can normally be divided
into phases to logically organize a campaign’s diverse, extended, and dispersed activities. Phasing
assists JFCs and staffs to visualize and think through the entire operation or campaign and to
define requirements in terms of forces, resources, time, space, and purpose. The primary benefit

IV-32 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

of phasing is that it assists commanders in systematically achieving objectives that cannot be achieved
concurrently by arranging smaller, related operations in a logical sequence. Phasing can be used to gain
progressive advantages and assist in achieving objectives as quickly and effectively as possible. Phasing
also provides a framework for assessing risk to portions of an operation or campaign, allowing
development of plans to mitigate this risk may be developed.

KEY TERM

phase — A definitive stage of an operation or campaign during which a

large portion of the forces and capabilities are involved in similar or mutually
supporting activities for a common purpose.

b. Application

(1) A phase can be characterized by the “focus” that is placed on it. Phases are
distinct in time, space, and/or purpose from one another, but must be planned in support of each
other and should represent a natural progression and subdivision of the campaign or operation,
as shown in Figure IV-8. Phases are necessarily linked and gain significance in the larger
context of the campaign. As such, it is imperative that the campaign or operation not be broken
down into numerous arbitrary components that may inhibit tempo and lead to a plodding,
incremental approach. Since a campaign is required whenever pursuit of a strategic objective is
not attainable through a single major operation, the theater operational design includes provision
for related phases that may or may not be executed.

(2) The JFC’s vision of how a campaign or operation should unfold drives subsequent
decisions regarding phasing. Phasing, in turn, assists in framing the commander’s intent and
assigning tasks to subordinate commanders. By arranging operations and activities into phases,
the JFC can better integrate and synchronize subordinate operations in time, space, and purpose.
Each phase should represent a natural subdivision of the campaign or operation’s intermediate
objectives. As such, a phase represents a definitive stage during which a large portion of the
forces and joint/multinational capabilities are involved in similar or mutually supporting activities.

(3) Phasing is accomplished using forward and backward planning methods, simultaneously.
Backward planning develops phases from the end state to the present; it provides better long-term
focus. Forward planning develops phases from the present to the end state, focusing on near term
objectives; it gives planners a better idea of near term feasibility. A successful plan will mesh backward
and forward planned phases.

(4) As a general rule, the phasing of the campaign or operation should be conceived
in event-driven rather than time-driven terms. However, resource availability depends in
large part on time-constrained activities and factors — such as sustainment or deployment rates
— rather than the events associated with the operation. The challenge for planners, then, is to
reconcile the reality of time-oriented deployment of forces and sustainment with the event-
driven phasing of operations.

IV-33
Chapter IV

NOTIONAL OPERATION PLAN PHASES Versus

NOTIONAL OPERATION
LEVEL PLAN PHASES
OF MILITARY EFFORT
Level of Military Effort

St

En Au tivit
ab

ab tho ies
iliz

lin rit
Ac
in

g y
g

Ci
Dominating

Ac

vil
tiv
Activities

i
tie
OPLAN OPLAN

s
Seizing
xxxx the Initiative xxxx
Activities
Shaping Shaping
Deterring Activities

Shaping Activities

Theater Shaping

Global Shaping

Shape Deter Seize the Dominate Stabilize Enable Civil Shape

Phase 0 Phase I Initiative Phase III Phase IV Authority Phase 0
Phase II Phase V
OPLAN activation Phases OPLAN termination

OPLAN operation plan OPLAN – operation plan

Figure IV-8. Notional Operation Plan Phases

(5) Effective phasing must address how the joint force will avoid reaching a culminating point.
If resources are insufficient to sustain the force until achieving the end state, planners should consider
phasing the campaign or operation to account for necessary operational pauses between phases. Such
phasing enables the reconstitution of the joint force during joint operations, but the JFC must understand
that this may provide the adversary an opportunity to reconstitute as well. In some cases, sustainment
requirements and political factors may even dictate the purpose of certain phases as well as the sequence
of those phases. For example, phases may shift the main effort among Service and functional components
to maintain momentum while one component is being reconstituted.

c. Number, Sequence, and Overlap. Working within the phasing construct, the actual phases
used will vary (compressed, expanded, or omitted entirely) with the joint campaign or operation and be
determined by the JFC. During planning, the JFC establishes conditions, objectives, or events for
transitioning from one phase to another and plans sequels and branches for potential contingencies.
Phases are designed to be conducted sequentially, but some activities from a phase may begin in a
previous phase and continue into subsequent phases. The JFC adjusts the phases to exploit opportunities
presented by the adversary or operational situation or to react to unforeseen conditions. A joint campaign
or operation may be conducted in multiple phases simultaneously if the OA has widely varying conditions.
For instance, the commander may transition to the stabilize phase in areas where he has achieved full-
spectrum dominance, while remaining in the dominate phase in those areas where the enemy has not
yet capitulated.

IV-34 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

d. Transitions. Transitions between phases are designed to be distinct shifts in focus by the joint
force, often accompanied by changes in command or support relationships. The activities that predominate
during a given phase, however, rarely align with neatly definable breakpoints. The need to move into
another phase normally is identified by assessing that a set of objectives are achieved or that the enemy
has acted in a manner that requires a major change in focus for the joint force and is therefore usually
event driven, not time driven. Changing the focus of the operation takes time and may require changing
commander’s objectives, desired effects, MOEs, priorities, command relationships, force allocation, or
even the design of the OA. An example is the shift of focus from sustained combat operations in the
dominate phase to a preponderance of stability operations in the stabilize and enable civil authority
phases. Hostilities gradually lessen as the joint force begins to reestablish order, commerce, and local
government; and deters adversaries from resuming hostile actions while the US and international community
takes steps to establish or restore the conditions necessary for long-term stability. This challenge demands
an agile shift in joint force skill sets, actions, organizational behaviors, and mental outlooks; and coordination
with a wider range of other agencies and multinational partners, to provide those capabilities necessary
to address the mission-specific factors.

e. Phasing Model. Although the commander will determine the number and actual phases
used during a campaign or operation, use of the phases shown in Figure IV-9 and described
below provides a flexible model to arrange combat and stability operations. Within the context
of these phases established by a higher-level JFC, subordinate JFCs and component
commanders may establish additional phases that fit their CONOPS. For example, the
JFLCC or a subordinate JTF might have the following four phases inside the CCDR’s seize
initiative phase: deploy, forcible entry, defense, and offense. The JFLCC could use the offense
sub-phase as a transition to the CCDR’s dominate phase.

f. The general phasing construct can be applied to various campaigns and operations.
Operations and activities in the shape and deter phases normally are outlined in SCPs and those
in the remaining phases are outlined in JSCP-directed OPLANs. By design, OPLANs generally
do not include security cooperation activities that are addressed elsewhere. CCDRs generally use the
phasing model to link the pertinent SCP and OPLAN operations and activities.

(1) Shape. Joint and multinational operations — inclusive of normal and routine military
activities — and various interagency activities are performed to dissuade or deter potential adversaries
and to assure or solidify relationships with friends and allies. They are executed continuously with the
intent to enhance international legitimacy and gain multinational cooperation in support of defined national
strategic and strategic military objectives. They are designed to assure success by shaping perceptions
and influencing the behavior of both adversaries and allies, developing allied and friendly military capabilities
for self-defense and coalition operations, improving information exchange and intelligence sharing, and
providing US forces with peacetime and contingency access. Shape phase activities must adapt to a
particular theater environment and may be executed in one theater in order to create effects and/or
achieve objectives in another. Planning that supports most “shaping” requirements typically occurs in the
context of day-to-day security cooperation, and combatant commands may incorporate Phase 0 activities
and tasks into the SCP. Thus, these requirements are beyond the scope of JP 5-0. However, contingency
and crisis action planning requirements also occur while global and theater shaping activities are ongoing,

IV-35
Chapter IV

PHASING MODEL

ENABLE
SEIZE
SHAPE DETER DOMINATE STABILIZE CIVIL
INITIATIVE
Phase 0 Phase I Phase III Phase IV AUTHORITY
Phase II
Phase V

PREVENT CRISIS ASSURE ESTABLISH ESTABLISH TRANSFER TO

PREPARE DEFINED FRIENDLY DOMINANT FORCE SECURITY; CIVIL
FREEDOM OF CAPABILITIES RESTORE AUTHORITY
ACTION ACHIEVE SERVICES REDEPLOY
ACCESS FULL-SPECTRUM
THEATER SUPERIORITY
INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure IV-9. Phasing Model

and these requirements are satisfied in accordance with the CJCSM 3122 series. Moreover, the JOPP
steps described in Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,” are useful in planning security
cooperation activities as well as developing OPLANs and OPORDs.

(2) Deter. The intent of this phase is to deter undesirable adversary action by demonstrating
the capabilities and resolve of the joint force. It differs from deterrence that occurs in the shape phase
in that it is largely characterized by preparatory actions that specifically support or facilitate the execution
of subsequent phases of the operation/campaign. Once the crisis is defined, these actions may include
mobilization, tailoring of forces and other predeployment activities; initial deployment into a theater;
employment of ISR assets to provide real-time and near-real-time situational awareness; setting up of
transfer operations at en route locations to support aerial ports of debarkation in post-chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives attack configurations; and development of mission-tailored
C2, intelligence, force protection, transportation, and logistic requirements to support the JFC’s concepts
of operations. CCDRs continue to engage multinational partners, thereby providing the basis for further
crisis response. Liaison teams and coordination with other agencies assist in setting conditions for
execution of subsequent phases of the campaign or operation. Many actions in the deter phase build on
security cooperation activities from the previous phase and are conducted as part of security cooperation
plans and activities. They can also be part of stand-alone operations.

(3) Seize Initiative. JFCs seek to seize the initiative in combat and noncombat situations
through the application of appropriate joint force capabilities. In combat operations this involves
executing offensive operations at the earliest possible time, forcing the adversary to offensive
culmination and setting the conditions for decisive operations. Rapid application of joint combat
power may be required to delay, impede, or halt the adversary’s initial aggression and to deny
the initial objectives. If an adversary has achieved its initial objectives, the early and rapid
application of offensive combat power can dislodge adversary forces from their position, creating
conditions for the exploitation, pursuit, and ultimate destruction of both those forces and their will to fight

IV-36 JP 5-0
 Operational Art and Design

during the dominate phase. During this phase, operations to gain access to theater infrastructure and to
expand friendly freedom of action continue while the JFC seeks to degrade adversary capabilities with
the intent of resolving the crisis at the earliest opportunity. In all operations, the JFC establishes conditions
for stability by providing immediate assistance to relieve conditions that precipitated the crisis.

(4) Dominate. The dominate phase focuses on breaking the enemy’s will for organized
resistance or, in noncombat situations, control of the operational environment. Success in this
phase depends upon overmatching joint force capability at the critical time and place. This
phase includes full employment of joint force capabilities and continues the appropriate sequencing
of forces into the OA as quickly as possible. When a campaign or operation is focused on
conventional enemy forces, the dominate phase normally concludes with decisive operations
that drive an adversary to culmination and achieve the JFC’s operational objectives. Against unconventional
adversaries, decisive operations are characterized by dominating and controlling the operational
environment through a combination of conventional, unconventional, information, and stability operations.
Stability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next phase and relieve
suffering. In noncombat situations, the joint force’s activities seek to control the situation or operational
environment. Dominate phase activities may establish the conditions for an early favorable conclusion
of operations or set the conditions for transition to the next phase.

(5) Stabilize. The stabilize phase is required when there is no fully functional, legitimate civil
governing authority present. The joint force may be required to perform limited local governance,
integrating the efforts of other supporting/contributing multinational, IGO, NGO, or USG agency
participants until legitimate local entities are functioning. This includes providing or assisting in the provision
of basic services to the population. The stabilize phase is typically characterized by a change from
sustained combat operations to stability operations. Stability operations are necessary to ensure that the
threat (military and/or political) is reduced to a manageable level that can be controlled by the potential
civil authority or, in noncombat situations, to ensure that the situation leading to the original crisis does not
reoccur and/or its effects are mitigated. Redeployment operations may begin during this phase and
should be identified as early as possible. Throughout this segment, the JFC continuously assesses the
impact of current operations on the ability to transfer overall regional authority to a legitimate civil entity,
which marks the end of the phase.

(6) Enable Civil Authority. This phase is predominantly characterized by joint force support
to legitimate civil governance in theater. Depending upon the level of indigenous state capacity, joint
force activities during phase VI may be at the behest of that authority or they may be under its direction.
The goal is for the joint force to enable the viability of the civil authority and its provision of essential
services to the largest number of people in the region. This includes coordination of joint force actions
with supporting or supported multinational, agency, and other organization participants; establishment of
MOEs; and influencing the attitude of the population favorably regarding the US and local civil authority’s
objectives. DOD policy is to support indigenous persons or groups promoting freedom, rule of law,
and an entrepreneurial economy and opposing extremism and the murder of civilians. The joint force
will be in a supporting role to the legitimate civil authority in the region throughout the enable civil
authority phase. Redeployment operations, particularly for combat units, will often begin during this
phase and should be identified as early as possible. The military end state is achieved during this phase,
signaling the end of the campaign or operation. Operations are concluded when redeployment is

IV-37
Chapter IV

complete. Combatant command involvement with other nations and agencies, beyond the termination
of the joint operation, may be required to achieve the national strategic end state.

“These phases of a plan do not comprise rigid instructions, they are merely
guideposts. . . . Rigidity inevitably defeats itself, and the analysts who point to a
changed detail as evidence of a plan’s weakness are completely unaware of the
characteristics of the battlefield.”

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

IV-38 JP 5-0
 APPENDIX A
FLEXIBLE DETERRENT OPTIONS

“In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a general
status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But
deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against
leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their
people and the wealth of their nations…We must adapt the concept of imminent
threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.”

The National Security Strategy, September 2002

1. General

Flexible deterrent options are preplanned, deterrence-oriented actions carefully tailored to send
the right signal and influence an adversary’s actions. The basic purpose of FDOs is to bring an issue to
early resolution without armed conflict. They can be established to dissuade actions before a crisis
arises or to deter further aggression during a crisis. FDOs are developed for each instrument of
national power — diplomatic, informational, military, and economic, — but they are most
effective when used to combine the influence across instruments of national power. FDOs
facilitate early strategic decisionmaking, rapid de-escalation, and crisis resolution by laying out a wide
range of interrelated response paths. Examples of FDOs for each instrument of national power are
listed in Figures A-1 through A-4. Key goals of FDOs are:

a. Deter aggression through communicating the strength of US commitments to treaty

obligations and regional peace and stability.

b. Confront the adversary with unacceptable costs for their possible aggression.

c. Isolate the adversary from regional neighbors and attempt to split the adversary coalition.

d. Rapidly improve the military balance of power in the AOR without precipitating armed
response from the adversary.

2. Description of Deterrent Actions

a. Deterrence is the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is

a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.
FDOs are deterrent-oriented response options that are requested and may be initiated based
on evaluation of indicators of heightened regional tensions.

b. FDOs serve two basic purposes. First, they assist in bringing an issue to early resolution
before armed conflict by sending an appropriate message to belligerent parties. Second, they
position US forces in a manner that facilitates implementation of OPLANs or OPORDs in the
event that hostilities are unavoidable. They also facilitate an early decision by laying out a wide
range of interrelated response paths that are carefully tailored to avoid the classic response of

A-1
Appendix A

EXAMPLES OF REQUESTED DIPLOMATIC

FLEXIBLE DETERRENT OPTIONS

Alert and introduce special teams (e.g., public diplomacy)

Reduce international diplomatic ties
Increase cultural group pressure
Promote democratic elections
Initiate noncombatant evacuation procedures
Identify the steps to peaceful resolution
Restrict activities of diplomatic missions
Prepare to withdraw or withdraw US embassy personnel
Take actions to gain support of allies and friends
Restrict travel of US citizens
Gain support through the United Nations
Demonstrate international resolve

Figure A-1. Examples of Requested Diplomatic Flexible Deterrent Options

“too much, too soon, or too little, too late.” They are initiated before and after unambiguous warning.
Although they are not intended to place US forces in jeopardy if deterrence fails, risk analysis
should be an inherent step in determining which FDO to use, and how and when that FDO
should be used. FDOs have the advantage of rapid de-escalation if the situation precipitating the FDO
changes.

3. Flexible Deterrent Option Implementation

The President or SecDef direct FDO implementation, and the specific FDO or combination
selected will vary with each situation. Their use will be consistent with US national security
strategy. FDOs can be used individually, in packages, sequentially, or concurrently, but are
primarily designed to be used in groups that maximize integrated results from all the
diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments of national power. It is
imperative that extensive, continuous coordination occurs with interagency and multinational
partners in order to maximize the impact of FDOs.

A-2 JP 5-0
 Flexible Deterrent Options

EXAMPLES OF REQUESTED INFORMATIONAL

FLEXIBLE DETERRENT OPTIONS

Promote US policy objectives through public policy

statements
Ensure consistency of strategic communications themes
and messages
Encourage Congressional support
Gain US and international public confidence and popular
support
Maintain open dialogue with the news media
Keep selected issues as lead stories
Increase protection of friendly critical information structure
Impose sanctions on communications systems technology
transfer
Implement psychological operations

Figure A-2. Examples of Requested Informational Flexible Deterrent Options

A-3
Appendix A

EXAMPLES OF REQUESTED MILITARY

FLEXIBLE DETERRENT OPTIONS

Increase readiness posture of in-place forces

Upgrade alert status
Increase intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
Initiate or increase show-of-force actions
Increase training and exercise activities
Maintain an open dialogue with the news media
Take steps to increase US public support
Increase defense support to public diplomacy
Increase information operations
Deploy forces into or near the potential operational area
Increase active and passive protection measures
Ensure consistency of strategic communications messages

Figure A-3. Examples of Requested Military Flexible Deterrent Options

A-4 JP 5-0
 Flexible Deterrent Options

EXAMPLES OF REQUESTED ECONOMIC

FLEXIBLE DETERRENT OPTIONS

Freeze or seize real property in the United States where

possible
Freeze monetary assets in the United States where possible
Freeze international assets where possible
Encourage US and international financial institutions to
restrict or terminate financial transactions
Encourage US and international corporations to restrict
transactions
Embargo goods and services
Enact trade sanctions
Enact restrictions on technology transfer
Cancel or restrict US-funded programs
Reduce security assistance programs

Figure A-4. Examples of Requested Economic Flexible Deterrent Options

A-5
Appendix A

Intentionally Blank

A-6 JP 5-0
 APPENDIX B
SAMPLE ESTIMATE FORMAT

Commander and staff estimates are central to formulating and updating military action to
meet the requirements of any situation. Below is a sample format that a JFC and joint force staff
can use as a guide when developing an estimate. The exact format and level of detail may vary
somewhat among joint commands and primary staff sections (manpower and personnel
directorate, J-2, etc.) based on theater-specific requirements and other factors. Refer to JOPES
Volume I for the specific format when there is a requirement for the supported JFC to submit a
commander’s estimate to satisfy a formal JOPES planning requirement.

1. Mission

a. Mission Analysis

(1) Determine the higher command’s purpose. Analyze national security and national
military strategic direction as well as appropriate guidance in alliance and coalition directions,
including long- and short-term objectives for conflict termination. Determine a clearly defined
military end state and related termination criteria.

(2) Determine specified, implied, and essential tasks and their priorities.

(3) Determine objectives and consider desired and undesired effects.

b. Mission Statement

(1) Express in terms of who, what, when, where, and why (purpose).

(2) Frame as a clear, concise statement of the essential tasks to be accomplished and
the purpose to be achieved.

2. Situation and Courses of Action

a. Situation Analysis

(1) Geostrategic Context

(a) Domestic and international context: political and/or diplomatic long- and
short-term causes of conflict; domestic influences, including public will, competing demands
for resources, and political, economic, legal, and moral constraints; and international interests
(reinforcing or conflicting with US interests, including positions of parties neutral to the conflict),
international law, positions of IGOs, and other competing or distracting international situations.
Similar factors must be considered for noncombat operations.

B-1
Appendix B

(b) A systems perspective of the operational environment: all relevant political,

military (see next paragraph), economic, social, infrastructure, informational, and other aspects.
See Chapter IV, “Operational Art and Design,” for a discussion of developing a systems
perspective.

(2) Analysis of the Adversary. Scrutiny of the opponent situation, including capabilities
and vulnerabilities (at the theater level, commanders normally will have available a formal
intelligence estimate) should include the following:

(a) Broad military COAs being taken and available in the future.

(b) Political and military intentions and objectives (to extent known).

(c) Military strategic and operational advantages and limitations.

(d) Possible external military support.

(e) COGs (strategic and operational) and decisive points.

(f) Specific operational characteristics such as strength, composition, location,

and disposition; reinforcements; logistics; time, and space factors (including basing utilized and
available); and combat/noncombat efficiency and proficiency in joint operations.

(3) Friendly Situation. Should follow the same pattern used for the analysis of the
adversary. At the theater level, CCDRs normally will have available specific supporting estimates,
including personnel, logistics, and communications estimates; multinational operations require
specific analysis of alliance or coalition partner objectives, capabilities, and vulnerabilities.
Interagency coordination required for the achievement of objectives must also be considered.

(4) Operational Limitations. Actions either required or prohibited by higher authority,

such as constraints or restraints, and other restrictions that limit the commander’s freedom of
action, such as diplomatic agreements, political or economic conditions in affected countries,
and host nation issues.

(5) Assumptions. Assumptions are intrinsically important factors upon which the
conduct of the operation is based and must be noted as such.

(6) Deductions. Deductions from the above analysis should yield estimates of relative
combat power, including enemy capabilities that can affect mission accomplishment.

b. Course of Action Development and Analysis. COAs are based on the above analysis
and a creative determination of how the mission will be accomplished. Each COA must be
adequate, feasible, and acceptable. State all practical COAs open to the commander that, if
successful, will accomplish the mission. For a CCDR’s strategic estimate, each COA typically

B-2 JP 5-0
 Sample Estimate Format

will constitute an alternative theater strategic or operational concept and should outline the
following:

(1) Major strategic and operational tasks to be accomplished in the order in which
they are to be accomplished.

(2) Major forces or capabilities required (to include joint, interagency, and
multinational).

(3) C2 concept.

(4) Sustainment concept.

(5) Deployment concept.

(6) Estimate of time required to achieve the termination criteria.

(7) Concept for establishing and maintaining a theater reserve.

3. Analysis of Adversary Capabilities and Intentions

a. Determine the probable effect of possible adversary capabilities and intentions on the
success of each friendly COA (accomplished by a “red cell” if one is formed).

b. Conduct this analysis in an orderly manner by time phasing, geographic location, and
functional event. Consider:

(1) The potential actions of subordinates two echelons down.

(2) Conflict termination issues; think through own action, opponent reaction, and
counteraction.

(3) The potential impact on friendly desired effects and the likelihood that the
adversary’s actions will cause specific undesired effects.

c. Conclude with revalidation of friendly COAs. Determine additional requirements, make

required modifications, and list advantages and disadvantages of each adversary capability.

4. Comparison of Own Courses of Action

a. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each COA.

b. Compare with respect to governing factors.

B-3
Appendix B

(1) Fixed values for joint operations (the principles of joint operations, the fundamentals
of joint warfare, and the elements of operational art).

(2) Other factors (for example, political constraints).

(3) Mission accomplishment.

c. If appropriate, merge elements of different COAs into one.

5. Recommendation

Provide an assessment of which COAs are supportable, an analysis of the risk for each, and
a concise statement of the recommended COA with its requirements.

B-4 JP 5-0
 APPENDIX C
JOINT OPERATION PLAN FORMAT

SECTION A. INTRODUCTION

Below is a sample format that a joint force staff can use as a guide when developing a joint
operation plan. The exact format and level of detail may vary somewhat among joint commands,
based on theater-specific requirements and other factors. However, joint OPLANs will always
contain the basic five paragraphs (such as paragraph 3, “Execution”) and their primary
subparagraphs (such as paragraph 3a, “Concept of Operations”). The JPEC typically refers to
a joint OPLAN that encompasses more that one major operation as a campaign plan, but
JFCs prepare a plan for a campaign in joint OPLAN format.

CJCSM 3122.01, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Volume I: (Planning,
Policies, and Procedures), describes joint operation planning interaction between the President, SecDef,
CJCS, the supported joint commander, and other JPEC members, and provides models of planning
messages and estimates. CJCSM 3122.03, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Volume
II: (Planning Formats), provides the formats for joint OPLANs when commanders must submit
OPLANs in accordance with JOPES policy requirements.

SECTION B. OPLAN FORMAT

a. Copy No. ______________________

b. Issuing Headquarters

c. Place of Issue

d. Effective Date/Time Group

e. OPERATION PLAN: (Number or Code Name)

f. USXXXXCOM OPERATIONS TO . . .

g. References: (List any maps, charts, and other relevant documents deemed essential to
comprehension of the plan.)

1. Situation

(This section briefly describes the composite conditions, circumstances, and influences of
the theater strategic situation that the plan addresses [see national intelligence estimate,
any multinational sources, and strategic and commanders’ estimates].)

C-1
Appendix C

a. General. (This section describes the general politico-military environment that would establish
the probable preconditions for execution of the OPLAN. It should summarize the competing political
goals that could lead to conflict. Identify primary antagonists. State US policy goals and the estimated
goals of other parties. Outline political decisions needed from other countries to achieve US policy
goals and conduct effective US military operations to attain US military objectives. Specific items can
be listed separately for clarity as depicted below.)

(1) Environment of Conflict. (Provide a summary of the national and/or multinational

strategic context [JSCP, UCP].)

(2) Policy Goals. (This section relates the strategic guidance, end state, and termination
objectives to the theater situation and requirements in its global, regional, and space dimensions,
interests, intentions/criteria for termination.)

(a) US/Multinational Policy Goals. (Identify the national security, multinational

or military objectives and strategic tasks assigned to or coordinated by the combatant command.)

(b) End State. (Describe the national strategic end state and relate the military
end state to the national strategic end state.)

(3) Non-US National Political Decisions.

(4) Operational Limitations. (List actions that are prohibited or required by higher
or multinational authority [ROE, law of armed conflict, termination criteria, etc.].)

b. Area of Concern

(1) Operational Area. (Describe the JFC’s OA. A map may be used as an attachment
to graphically depict the area.)

(2) Area of Interest. (Describe the area of concern to the commander, including the
area of influence, areas adjacent thereto, and extending into enemy territory to the objectives of
current or planned operations. This area also includes areas occupied by enemy forces who
could jeopardize the accomplishment of the mission.)

c. Deterrent Options. (Delineate FDOs desired to include those categories specified in

the current JSCP. Specific units and resources must be prioritized in terms of LAD relative to
C-day. Include possible diplomatic, informational, or economic deterrent options accomplished
by non-DOD agencies that would support US mission accomplishment. See Appendix A,
“Flexible Deterrent Options,” for examples of FDOs.)

d. Risk. (Risk is the probability and severity of loss linked to hazards. List the specific
hazards that the joint force may encounter during the mission. List risk mitigation measures.

C-2 JP 5-0
 Joint Operation Plan Format

e. Adversary Forces. (Identify the opposing forces expected upon execution and appraise their
general capabilities. Refer readers to Annex B (Intelligence) for details. However, this section should
provide the information essential to a clear understanding of the magnitude of the hostile threat. Identify
the adversary’s strategic and operational COGs and critical vulnerabilities as depicted below.)

(1) Adversary Centers of Gravity.

(a) Strategic.

(b) Operational.

(2) Adversary Critical Factors.

(a) Strategic.

(b) Operational.

(3) Adversary Courses of Action (most likely and most dangerous to friendly mission
accomplishment).

(a) General.

(b) Adversary’s End State.

(c) Adversary’s Strategic Objectives.

(d) Adversary’s Operational Objectives.

(e) Adversary Concept of Operations.

(4) Adversary Logistics and Sustainment.

(5) Other Adversary Forces/Capabilities.

(6) Adversary Reserve Mobilization.

f. Friendly Forces

(1) Friendly Centers of Gravity. (This section should identify friendly COGs, both
strategic and operational; this provides focus to force protection efforts.)

(a) Strategic.

(b) Operational.

(2) Friendly Critical Factors.

C-3
Appendix C

(a) Strategic.

(b) Operational.

(3) Multinational Forces.

(4) Supporting Commands and Agencies. (Describe the operations of unassigned

forces, other than those tasked to support this OPLAN, that could have a direct and significant
influence on the operations in the plan. Also list the specific tasks of friendly forces, commands,
or government agencies that would directly support execution of the OPLAN. For example,
USTRANSCOM, USSTRATCOM, Defense Intelligence Agency, and so forth.)

g. Assumptions. (List all reasonable assumptions for all participants contained in the
JSCP or other tasking on which the OPLAN is based. State expected conditions over which the
JFC has no control. Include assumptions that are directly relevant to the development of the
plan and supporting plans, and assumptions to the plan as a whole. Include both specified and
implied assumptions that, if they do not occur as expected, would invalidate the plan or its
CONOPS. Specify the mobility (air and sea lift), the degree of mobilization assumed, i.e., total,
full, partial, selective, or none.)

(1) Threat Warning/Timeline.

(2) Pre-positioning and Regional Access (including international support and

assistance).

(3) In-Place Forces.

(4) Strategic Assumptions (including those pertaining to nuclear weapons

employment).

(5) Legal Considerations. (List those significant legal considerations on which the
plan is based.)

(a) International Law, including the Law of Armed Conflict.

(b) United States Law.

(c) Host nation and coalition laws.

(d) ROE.

(e) Status-of-Forces Agreements.

(f) Other bilateral treaties and agreements including Article 98 agreements.

C-4 JP 5-0
 Joint Operation Plan Format

2. Mission

(State concisely the essential task(s) the JFC has to accomplish. This statement should
address: who, what, when, where, and why.)

3. Execution

Annex C (Operations)

a. Concept of Operations. (For a CCDR’s OPLAN, the appropriate strategic concept(s)

can be taken from the SCP and developed into a strategic concept of operation for a theater
campaign or operation plan. Otherwise, the CONOPS will be developed as a result of the COA
selected by the JFC during COA development. The concept should be stated in terms of who,
what, where, when, why, and how. It also contains the JFC’s strategic vision, intent and design
in the strategic concept of operation for force projection operations, including mobilization,
deployment, employment, sustainment and redeployment of all participating forces, activities
and agencies.)

(1) Commander’s Intent. (This should describe the JFC’s intent (purpose and end
state), overall and by phase. This statement deals primarily with the military conditions that lead
to mission accomplishment, so the commander may highlight selected objectives and their
supporting effects. It may also include how the posture of forces at the end state facilitates
transition to future operations. It may also include the JFC’s assessment of the adversary
commander’s intent and an assessment of where and how much risk is acceptable during the
operation. The commander’s intent, though, is not a summary of the CONOPS.)

(a) Purpose and End State. (See Chapter II, “Strategic Direction,” for details on
determining the end state.)

(b) Objectives. (See Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,” for a
vignette example of how objectives can be included in the intent narrative.)

(c) Effects, if discussed. (See Chapter III, “The Joint Operation Planning Process,”
for a vignette example of how desired and undesired effects can be included in the intent narrative.)

(2) General. (Base the CONOPS on the JFC’s selected COA. The CONOPS states
how the commander plans to accomplish the mission, including the forces involved; the phasing
of operations; the general nature and purpose of operations to be conducted; and the interrelated
or cross-Service support. For a CCDR’s OPLAN, the CONOPS should include a statement
concerning the perceived need for Reserve Component mobilization based on plan force
deployment timing and Reserve Component force size requirements. The CONOPS should be
sufficiently developed to include an estimate of the level and duration of conflict to provide
supporting and subordinate commanders a basis for preparing adequate supporting plans. To the extent
possible, the CONOPS should incorporate the following:)

C-5
Appendix C

(a) JFC’s military objectives, supporting desired effects, and operational focus.

(b) Orientation on the adversary’s strategic and operational COGs.

(c) Protection of friendly strategic and operational COGs.

(d) Phasing of operations, to include the commander’s intent for each phase.

1. Phase I:

a. JFC’s Intent.

b. Timing.

c. Objectives and desired effects.

d. Risk.

e. Execution.

f. Employment.

(1) Land Forces.

(2) Air Forces.

(3) Maritime Forces.

(4) Space Forces.

(5) SOF.

(6) Joint CMO Task Force.

g. Operational Fires. List those significant fires considerations on which

the plan is based. The fires discussion should reflect the JFC’s concept for application of available
fires assets. Guidance for joint fires may address the following:

(1) Joint force policies, procedures, and planning cycles.

(2) Joint fire support assets for planning purposes.

(3) Priorities for employing target acquisition assets.

C-6 JP 5-0
 Joint Operation Plan Format

(4) Areas that require joint fires to support operational maneuver.

(5) Anticipated joint fire support requirements.

(6) Fire support coordinating measures (if required).

See JP 3-09, Joint Fire Support, for a detailed discussion.

2. Phases II through XX. (Cite information as stated in subparagraph 3a(2)(d)1

above for each subsequent phase based on expected sequencing, changes, or new opportunities.)

b. Tasks. (List the tasks assigned to each element of the supported and supporting commands in
separate subparagraphs. Each task should be a concise statement of a mission to be performed either
in future planning for the operation or on execution of the OPORD. The task assignment should
encompass all key actions that subordinate and supporting elements must perform to fulfill the CONOPS,
including operational and tactical deception. If the actions cannot stand alone without exposing the
deception, they must be published separately to receive special handling.)

c. Coordinating Instructions. (Provide instructions necessary for coordination and

synchronization of the joint operation that apply to two or more elements of the command.
Explain terms pertaining to the timing of execution and deployments. )

4. Administration and Logistics

a. Concept of Sustainment. (This should provide broad guidance for the theater strategic
sustainment concept for the campaign or operation, with information and instructions broken
down by phases. It should cover functional areas of logistics, transportation, personnel policies,
and administration.)

b. Logistics. (This paragraph should address sustainment priorities and resources; base
development and other civil engineering requirements; HNS; contracted support; environmental
considerations; and inter-Service responsibilities. Identify the priority and movement of major
logistic items for each option and phase of the concept. Note: Logistic phases must complement
the operation’s phases. Identify strategic and theater ports of embarkation and debarkation for
resupply. Outline transportation policies, guidance, and procedures for all options and phases.)

c. Personnel. (Identify detailed planning requirements and subordinate taskings. Assign

tasks for establishing and operating joint personnel facilities, managing accurate and timely
personnel accountability and strength reporting, and making provisions for staffing them. Discuss
the administrative management of participating personnel, the reconstitution of forces, command
replacement and rotation policies, and required individual augmentation to command headquarters
and other operational requirements.)

d. Public Affairs. Refer to Annex F.

C-7
Appendix C

e. Civil-Military Operations. Refer to Annex G.

f. Meteorological and Oceanographic Services. Refer to Annex H.

g. Environmental Considerations. Refer to Annex L. See JP 3-34, Joint Engineer

Operations.

h. Geospatial Information and Services. Refer to Annex M.

i. Health Service Support. Refer to Annex Q. (Identify planning requirements and

subordinate taskings for health service support functional areas. Address critical medical supplies
and resources. Assign tasks for establishing joint medical assumptions and include them in a
subparagraph.)

5. Command and Control

a. Command

(1) Command Relationships. (State the organizational structure expected to exist

during plan implementation. Indicate any changes to major C2 organizations and the time of
expected shift. Identify all command arrangement agreements and memorandums of
understanding used and those that require development.)

(2) Command Posts. (List the designations and locations of each major headquarters
involved in execution. When headquarters are to be deployed or the plan provides for the relocation
of headquarters to an alternate command post, indicate the location and time of opening and
closing each headquarters.)

(3) Succession to Command. (Designate in order of succession the commanders

responsible for assuming command of the operation in specific circumstances.)

b. Joint Communications System Support. (Provide a general statement concerning the

scope of communications systems and procedures required to support the operation. Highlight
any communications systems or procedures requiring special emphasis.) Refer to Annex K.

s/
t/
Rank/Service
Commander

Annexes:

C-8 JP 5-0
 Joint Operation Plan Format

A — Task Organization

B — Intelligence

C — Operations

D — Logistics

E — Personnel

F — Public Affairs

G — Civil-Military Operations

H — Meteorological and Oceanographic Services

J — Command Relationships

K — Communications Systems Support

L — Environmental Considerations

M — Geospatial Information and Services

N — Space Operations

P — Host-Nation Support

Q — Medical Services

R — Reports

S — Special Technical Operations

T — Consequence Management

U — Notional OPLAN Decision Guide

V — Interagency Coordination

X — Execution Checklist

Y — Strategic Communications

C-9
Appendix C

Z — Distribution

AA — Religious Support

Note: Annexes A-D, K, and Y are required annexes for a crisis action planning OPORD per
JOPES. All others may either be required by the JSCP or deemed necessary by the supported
CCDR.

C-10 JP 5-0
 APPENDIX D
REFERENCES

The development of JP 5-0 is based on the following primary references:

1. Federal Statutory Laws

Title 10, US Code, as amended.

2. Presidential Guidance

a. Unified Command Plan.

b. Contingency Planning Guidance.

3. Secretary of Defense Guidance

a. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Forces for Unified Commands.

b. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Assignment of Forces.

c. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Implementation of the Adaptive Planning Roadmap.

d. Strategic Planning Guidance.

e. Security Cooperation Guidance.

4. Department of Defense

a. DOD Directive 3000.05, Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and
Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations.

b. DOD Directive 5100.1, Functions of the Department of Defense and its Major
Components.

c. DOD Directive 5100.3, Support of the Headquarters of Combatant and Subordinate

Joint Commands.

d. DOD Instruction 3020.41 Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the US Armed

Forces.

e. DOD Instruction 3027.21, Continuation of Essential DOD Contractor Services During

Crises.

D-1
Appendix D

5. Department of State

Briefing, Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization United States
Department of State, Post Conflict Reconstruction: Essential Tasks

6. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

a. CJCSI 3020.01, Managing, Integrating, and Using Joint Deployment Information

Systems.

b. CJCSI 3100.01A, Joint Strategic Planning System.

c. CJCSI 3110.01, Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan.

d. CJCSI 3141.01C, Responsibilities for the Management and Review of Contingency Plans.

e. CJCSI 3401.01C, Chairman’s Readiness System.

f. CJCSI 5714.01A, Release Procedures for Joint Staff and Joint Papers and Information.

g. CJCSI 8501.01, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commanders, and
Joint Staff Participation in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System.

h. CJCSM 3122.01, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, Volume I: (Planning
Policies and Procedures).

i. CJCSM 3122.02, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, Volume III: Crisis
Action Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data, Development and Deployment Execution.

j. CJCSM 3122.03B, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, Volume II: (Planning
Formats).

k. CJCSM 3141.01C, Responsibilities for the Management and Review of Contingency

Plans.

l. CJCSM 3150.01A, Joint Reporting Structure General Instructions.

7. Joint Publications

a. JP 1, Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States.

b. JP 0-2, Unified Actions Armed Forces (UNAAF).

c. JP 1-0, Personnel Support to Joint Operations.

D-2 JP 5-0
 References

d. JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.

e. JP 2-0, Doctrine for Intelligence Support to Joint Operations.

f. JP 2-01.3, Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment.

g. JP 3-0, Joint Operations.

h. JP 3-05, Doctrine for Joint Special Operations.

i. JP 3-08, Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Coordination During Joint Operations.

j. JP 3-09, Joint Fire Support.

k. JP 3-13, Information Operations.

l. JP 3-16, Multinational Operations.

m. JP 3-30, Command and Control of Joint Air Operations.

n. JP 3-33, Joint Task Force Headquarters.

o. JP 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations.

p. JP 3-0, Joint Targeting.

q. JP 4-0, Doctrine for Logistic Support of Joint Operations.

r. JP 4-01, Joint Doctrine for the Defense Transportation System.

s. JP 4-05, Joint Mobilization Planning.

t. JP 6-0, Joint Communications System.

8. Service Publications

a. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2, Organization and Employment of Aerospace

Power.

b. AFDD 2-1, Air Warfare.

c. AFDD 2-1.2, Strategic Attack.

d. AFDD 2-2, Space Operations.

D-3
Appendix D

e. AFDD 2-2.1, Counterspace Operations.

f. AFDD 2-5, Information Operations.

g. AFDD 2-6, Air Mobility Operations.

h. AFDD 2-7, Special Operations.

i. AFDD 2-8, Command and Control.

j. Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1-2, Campaigning.

k. Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations.

l. FM 3-93, The Army in Theater Operations.

m. FM 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production.

n. FM 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces.

o. MCDP 5, Planning.

p. Naval Doctrinal Publication 1, Naval Warfare.

q. Army Mobilization and Operations Planning and Execution System

r. Navy Capabilities and Mobilization Plan.

s. Marine Corps Capabilities Plan and Marine Corps Mobilization, Activation, Integration,
Deactivation Plan.

t. Air Force War and Mobilization Plan.

u. Coast Guard Capabilities Manual and Coast Guard Logistic Support and Mobilization
Plan.

D-4 JP 5-0
 APPENDIX E
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS

1. User Comments

Users in the field are highly encouraged to submit comments on this publication to:
Commander, United States Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center, ATTN: Joint
Doctrine Group, 116 Lake View Parkway, Suffolk, VA 23435-2697. These comments should
address content (accuracy, usefulness, consistency, and organization), writing, and appearance.

2. Authorship

The lead agent and Joint Staff doctrine sponsor for this publication is the Director for
Operational Plans and Joint Force Development (J-7).

3. Supersession

This publication supersedes JP 5-0, 13 April 1995, Doctrine for Planning Joint Operations,
and JP 5-00.1, 25 January 2002, Joint Doctrine for Campaign Planning.

4. Change Recommendations

a. Recommendations for urgent changes to this publication should be submitted:

TO: JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC//JY-JOWPD/J-7-JEDD//

JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC//J7-JOWPD//
CDRUSJFCOM SUFFOLK VA//JT10//

Routine changes should be submitted electronically to Commander, Joint Warfighting Center,

Joint Doctrine Group and info the Lead Agent and the Director for Operational Plans and Joint
Force Development J-7/JEDD via the CJCS JEL at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine.

b. When a Joint Staff directorate submits a proposal to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that would change source document information reflected in this publication, that directorate
will include a proposed change to this publication as an enclosure to its proposal. The Military
Services and other organizations are requested to notify the Joint Staff/J-7 when changes to
source documents reflected in this publication are initiated.

c. Record of Changes:

CHANGE COPY DATE OF DATE POSTED

NUMBER NUMBER CHANGE ENTERED BY REMARKS
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

E-1
Appendix E

5. Distribution of Printed Publications

a. This publication is not programmed for printing. However, if printed, additional copies
of this publication can be obtained through the Service publication centers listed below (initial
contact) or USJFCOM in the event that the joint publication is not available from the Service.

b. Individuals and agencies outside the combatant commands, Services, Joint Staff, and
combat support agencies are authorized to receive only approved joint publications and joint test
publications. Release of any classified joint publication to foreign governments or foreign
nationals must be requested through the local embassy (Defense Attaché Office) to DIA Foreign
Liaison Office, PO-FL, Room 1E811, 7400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7400.

c. Additional copies should be obtained from the Military Service assigned administrative
support responsibility by DOD Directive 5100.3, 15 November 1999, Support of the Headquarters
of Unified, Specified, and Subordinate Joint Commands.

By Military Services:

Army: US Army AG Publication Center SL

1655 Woodson Road
Attn: Joint Publications
St. Louis, MO 63114-6181

Air Force: Air Force Publications Distribution Center

2800 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21220-2896

Navy: CO, Naval Inventory Control Point

5450 Carlisle Pike, Box 2020
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0788

Marine Corps: Commander (Attn: Publications)

814 Radford Blvd, Suite 20321
Albany, GA 31704-0321

Coast Guard: Commandant (G-RPD)

US Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001

Commander
USJFCOM JWFC Code JW2102
Doctrine and Education Group (Publication Distribution)
116 Lake View Parkway
Suffolk, VA 23435-2697

E-2 JP 5-0
 Administrative Instructions

d. Local reproduction is authorized and access to unclassified publications is unrestricted.

However, access to and reproduction authorization for classified joint publications must be in
accordance with DOD Regulation 5200.1-R, Information Security Program.

6. Distribution of Electronic Publications

a. The Joint Staff will not print copies of electronic joint publications for distribution.
Electronic versions are available at www.dtic.mil/doctrine (NIPRNET), or http://
nmcc20a.nmcc.smil.mil/dj9j7ead/doctrine/ (SIPRNET).

b. Only approved joint publications and joint test publications are releasable outside the
combatant commands, Services, and Joint Staff. Release of any classified joint publication to
foreign governments or foreign nationals must be requested through the local embassy (Defense
Attaché Office) to DIA Foreign Liaison Office, PO-FL, Room 1E811, 7400 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301-7400.

E-3
Appendix E

Intentionally Blank

E-4 JP 5-0
 GLOSSARY
PART I — ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFDD Air Force doctrine document

ALERTORD alert order
AOR area of responsibility

C2 command and control

CAP crisis action planning
CCDR combatant commander
CCIR commander’s critical information requirement
C-day unnamed day on which a deployment operation begins
CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
CJCSI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction
CJCSM Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff manual
CM consequence management
CMO civil-military operations
COA course of action
COG center of gravity
CONOPS concept of operations
CONPLAN operation plan in concept format
CONUS continental United States
COP common operational picture
CPG Contingency Planning Guidance

D-day unnamed day on which operations commence or are scheduled

to commence
DEPORD deployment order
DOD Department of Defense
DOS Department of State
DSPD defense support to public diplomacy

EXORD execute order

FCC functional combatant commander

FDO flexible deterrent option
FM field manual
FRAGORD fragmentary order

GCC geographic combatant commander

GFM Global Force Management

H-hour specific time an operation or exercise begins

HNS host-nation support

GL-1
Glossary

IGO intergovernmental organization

IO information operations
IPR in-progress review
ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

J-2 intelligence directorate of a joint staff

J-3 operations directorate of a joint staff
J-5 plans directorate of a joint staff
J-7 Operational Plans and Joint Force Development Directorate, Joint
Staff
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
JFC joint force commander
JFLCC joint force land component commander
JIACG joint interagency coordination group
JIPOE joint intelligence preparation of the operational environment
JOPES Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
JOPP joint operation planning process
JP joint publication
JPEC joint planning and execution community
JPG joint planning group
JRSOI joint reception, staging, onward movement, and integration
JSCP Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan
JSPS Joint Strategic Planning System
JTF joint task force

LAD latest arrival date

L-hour specific hour on C-day at which a deployment operation
commences or is to commence
LOC line of communications
LOI letter of instruction
LOO line of operations

MCDP Marine Corps doctrinal publication

MOE measure of effectiveness
MOP measure of performance

NDS national defense strategy

NGO nongovernmental organization
NMCC National Military Command Center
NMS National Military Strategy
NSC National Security Council
NSS national security strategy

OA operational area
OPLAN operation plan

GL-2 JP 5-0
 Glossary

OPORD operation order

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA public affairs
PLANORD planning order
POLAD political advisor
PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
PTDO prepare-to-deploy order

ROE rules of engagement

SC strategic communication
SCG Security Cooperation Guidance
SCP security cooperation plan
SecDef Secretary of Defense
SOF special operations forces

TPFDD time-phased force and deployment data

UCP Unified Command Plan

USG United States Government
USJFCOM United States Joint Forces Command
USSOCOM United States Special Operations Command
USSTRATCOM United States Strategic Command
USTRANSCOM United States Transportation Command

WARNORD warning order

WMD weapons of mass destruction

GL-3
 PART II — TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

acceptability. The joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether the contemplated course
of action is proportional and worth the cost in personnel, equipment, materiel, time involved, or
position; is consistent with the law of war; and is militarily and politically supportable. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

adequacy. The joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether the scope and concept
of planned operations can accomplish the assigned mission and comply with the planning
guidance provided. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition
and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

administrative control. Direction or exercise of authority over subordinate or other organizations

in respect to administration and support, including organization of Service forces, control
of resources and equipment, personnel management, unit logistics, individual and unit
training, readiness, mobilization, demobilization, discipline, and other matters not included
in the operational missions of the subordinate or other organizations. Also called ADCON.
(JP 1-02)

adversary. A party acknowledged as potentially hostile to a friendly party and against which
the use of force may be envisaged. (JP 1-02)

alert order. 1. A crisis action planning directive from the Secretary of Defense, issued by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that provides essential guidance for planning and directs the initiation of
execution planning for the selected course of action authorized by the Secretary of Defense. 2. A
planning directive that provides essential planning guidance and directs the initiation of execution
planning after the directing authority approves a military course of action. An alert order does not
authorize execution of the approved course of action. Also called ALERTORD. See also course
of action; execution planning. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition
and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

alliance. The relationship that results from a formal agreement (e.g., treaty) between two or
more nations for broad, long-term objectives that further the common interests of the
members. See also coalition; multinational. (JP 1-02)

allocation. In a general sense, distribution for employment of limited forces and resources
among competing requirements. Specific allocations (e.g., air sorties, nuclear weapons,
forces, and transportation) are described as allocation of air sorties, nuclear weapons, etc.
(This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

apportionment. In the general sense, distribution for planning of limited resources among
competing requirements. Specific apportionments (e.g., air sorties and forces for planning)

GL-4 JP 5-0
 Glossary

are described as apportionment of air sorties and forces for planning, etc. See also allocation. (JP
1-02)

archive. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

assessment. 1. A continuous process that measures the overall effectiveness of employing joint force
capabilities during military operations. 2. Determination of the progress toward accomplishing a
task, creating an effect, or achieving an objective. 3. Analysis of the security, effectiveness, and
potential of an existing or planned intelligence activity. 4. Judgment of the motives, qualifications,
and characteristics of present or prospective employees or “agents.” (JP 1-02)

assign. 1. To place units or personnel in an organization when such placement is relatively

permanent and/or where such organization controls and administers the units or personnel
for the primary function, or greater portion of the functions, of the unit or personnel. 2. To
detail individuals to specific duties or functions where such duties or functions are primary
and/or relatively permanent. See also attach. (JP 1-02)

attach. 1. The placement of units or personnel in an organization when such placement is

relatively temporary. 2. The detailing of individuals to specific functions where such functions
are secondary or relatively temporary, e.g., attached for quarters and rations; attached for
flying duty. See also assign. (JP 1-02)

augmentation forces. Forces to be transferred from a supporting combatant commander to the

combatant command (command authority) or operational control of a supported combatant
commander during the execution of an operation order approved by the President and
Secretary of Defense. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition
and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

base of operations. An area or facility from which a military force begins its offensive operations
to which it falls back in case of reverse, and in which supply facilities are organized. (JP
1-02)

base plan. In the context of joint operation planning level 2 planning detail, a type of operation
plan that describes the concept of operations, major forces, sustainment concept, and
anticipated timelines for completing the mission. It normally does not include annexes or a
time-phased force and deployment data. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

battle damage assessment. The estimate of damage resulting from the application of lethal or
nonlethal military force. Battle damage assessment is composed of physical damage
assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment. Also called BDA.
See also combat assessment. (JP 1-02)

branch. 1. A subdivision of any organization. 2. A geographically separate unit of an activity, which

performs all or part of the primary functions of the parent activity on a smaller scale. Unlike an

GL-5
Glossary

annex, a branch is not merely an overflow addition. 3. An arm or service of the Army. 4. The
contingency options built into the base plan. A branch is used for changing the mission, orientation,
or direction of movement of a force to aid success of the operation based on anticipated events,
opportunities, or disruptions caused by enemy actions and reactions. See also sequel. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

campaign. A series of related major operations aimed at achieving strategic and operational
objectives within a given time and space. (This term and its definition modify the existing
term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

campaign plan. A joint operation plan for a series of related major operations aimed at achieving
strategic or operational objectives within a given time and space. (This term and its definition
modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition
of JP 1-02.)

campaign planning. The process whereby combatant commanders and subordinate joint force
commanders translate national or theater strategy into operational concepts through the
development of an operation plan for a campaign. Campaign planning may begin during
contingency planning when the actual threat, national guidance, and available resources
become evident, but is normally not completed until after the President or Secretary of
Defense selects the course of action during crisis action planning. Campaign planning is
conducted when contemplated military operations exceed the scope of a single major joint
operation. See also campaign. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

center of gravity. The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of
action, or will to act. Also called COG. See also critical capability; critical requirement;
critical vulnerability. (JP 1-02)

coalition. An ad hoc arrangement between two or more nations for common action. (JP 1-02)

combatant command. A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under
a single commander established and so designated by the President, through the Secretary
of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities. (JP 1-02)

combatant command (command authority). Nontransferable command authority established

by title 10 (“Armed Forces”), United States Code, section 164, exercised only by commanders
of unified or specified combatant commands unless otherwise directed by the President or
the Secretary of Defense. Combatant command (command authority) cannot be delegated
and is the authority of a combatant commander to perform those functions of command
over assigned forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks,
designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations,
joint training, and logistics necessary to accomplish the missions assigned to the command.

GL-6 JP 5-0
 Glossary

Combatant command (command authority) should be exercised through the commanders of

subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate joint force
commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders. Combatant command
(command authority) provides full authority to organize and employ commands and forces as the
combatant commander considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions. Operational control
is inherent in combatant command (command authority). Also called COCOM. See also combatant
command; combatant commander; operational control; tactical control. (JP 1-02)

combatant commander. A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands

established by the President. Also called CCDR. See also combatant command. (JP 1-02)

combatant commander’s strategic concept. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of
JP 1-02.)

combat assessment. The determination of the overall effectiveness of force employment during military
operations. Combat assessment is composed of three major components: (a) battle damage
assessment; (b) munitions effectiveness assessment; and (c) reattack recommendation. Also called
CA. (JP 1-02)

combat support agency. A Department of Defense agency so designated by Congress or the

Secretary of Defense that supports military combat operations. Also called CSA. (Approved
for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

command and control. The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated
commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.
Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel,
equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in
planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the
accomplishment of the mission. Also called C2. (JP 1-02)

commander’s estimate. In the context of the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
level 1 planning detail for contingency planning, a developed course of action. The product
for this level can be a course of action briefing, command directive, commander’s estimate,
or a memorandum. The commander’s estimate provides the Secretary of Defense with
military courses of action to meet a potential contingency. See also commander’s estimate
of the situation. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

commander’s estimate of the situation. A process of reasoning by which a commander considers

all the circumstances affecting the military situation and arrives at a decision as to a course
of action to be taken to accomplish the mission. A commander’s estimate, which considers
a military situation so far in the future as to require major assumptions, is called a
commander’s long-range estimate of the situation. (JP 1-02)

GL-7
Glossary

commander’s intent. A concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired end state.
It may also include the commander’s assessment of the adversary commander’s intent and an
assessment of where and how much risk is acceptable during the operation. (JP 1-02)

common operational picture. A single identical display of relevant information shared by more than
one command. A common operational picture facilitates collaborative planning and assists all
echelons to achieve situational awareness. Also called COP. (JP 1-02)

completeness. The joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether operation plans
incorporate major operations and tasks to be accomplished and to what degree they include
forces required, deployment concept, employment concept, sustainment concept, time
estimates for achieving objectives, description of the end state, mission success criteria,
and mission termination criteria. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

concept of operations. A verbal or graphic statement that clearly and concisely expresses what
the joint force commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available
resources. The concept is designed to give an overall picture of the operation. Also called
commander’s concept or CONOPS. (This term and its definition modify the existing term
and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

concept plan. In the context of joint operation planning level 3 planning detail, an operation
plan in an abbreviated format that may require considerable expansion or alteration to
convert it into a complete operation plan or operation order. Also called CONPLAN. See
also operation plan. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition
and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

constraint. In the context of joint operation planning, a requirement placed on the command by
a higher command that dictates an action, thus restricting freedom of action. See also
operational limitation; restraint. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

contingency. A situation requiring military operations in response to natural disasters, terrorists,

subversives, or as otherwise directed by appropriate authority to protect US interests. (This
term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

contingency operation. A military operation that is either designated by the Secretary of Defense
as a contingency operation or becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law (title 10,
United States Code (USC), section 101 (a)(13). It is a military operation that: a. is designated
by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the Armed Forces are or
may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the
United States or against an opposing force; or b. is created by operation of law. Under 10
USC 101 (a)(13)(B), a contingency operations exists if a military operation results in the
(1) call-up to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services under
certain enumerated statues (10 USC 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, 12406, or 331-
335); and (2) the call-up to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services

GL-8 JP 5-0
 Glossary

under other (non-enumerated) statutes during war or national emergency declared by the President
or Congress. See also contingency; operation. (JP 1-02)

contingency plan. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

contingency planning. The Joint Operation Planning and Execution System planning activities that
occur in noncrisis situations. The Joint Planning and Execution Community uses contingency planning
to develop operation plans for a broad range of contingencies based on requirements identified in
the Contingency Planning Guidance, Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, or other planning directive.
Contingency planning underpins and facilitates the transition to crisis action planning. (Approved
for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

course of action. 1. Any sequence of activities that an individual or unit may follow. 2. A
possible plan open to an individual or commander that would accomplish, or is related to
the accomplishment of the mission. 3. The scheme adopted to accomplish a job or mission.
4. A line of conduct in an engagement. 5. A product of the Joint Operation Planning and
Execution System concept development phase and the course-of-action determination steps
of the joint operation planning process. Also called COA. (This term and its definition
modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition
of JP 1-02.)

course of action development. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP
1-02.)

crisis. An incident or situation involving a threat to a nation, its territories, citizens, military
forces, possessions, or vital interests that develops rapidly and creates a condition of such
diplomatic, economic, political, or military importance that commitment of military forces
and resources is contemplated in order to achieve national objectives. (JP 1-02)

crisis action planning. One of the two types of joint operation planning. The Joint Operation
Planning and Execution System process involving the time-sensitive development of joint
operation plans and operation orders for the deployment, employment, and sustainment of
assigned and allocated forces and resources in response to an imminent crisis. Crisis action
planning is based on the actual circumstances that exist at the time planning occurs. Also
called CAP. See also contingency planning; joint operation planning; Joint Operation
Planning and Execution System. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and
its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

critical capability. A means that is considered a crucial enabler for a center of gravity to function
as such and is essential to the accomplishment of the specified or assumed objective(s). See
also critical requirement, critical vulnerability. (JP 1-02)

critical requirement. An essential condition, resource, and means for a critical capability to be
fully operational. See also critical capability, critical vulnerability. (JP 1-02)

GL-9
Glossary

critical vulnerability. An aspect of a critical requirement which is deficient or vulnerable to direct or

indirect attack that will create decisive or significant effects. See also critical capability, critical
requirement. (JP 1-02)

culminating point. The point at which a force no longer has the capability to continue its form of
operations, offense or defense. a. In the offense, the point at which effectively continuing the attack
is no longer possible and the force must consider reverting to a defensive posture or attempting an
operational pause. b. In the defense, the point at which effective counteroffensive action is no
longer possible. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are
approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

decision point. A point in space and time when the commander or staff anticipates making a
key decision concerning a specific course of action. See also course of action. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion
in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

decisive point. A geographic place, specific key event, critical factor, or function that, when
acted upon, allows commanders to gain a marked advantage over an adversary or contribute
materially to achieving success. (JP 1-02)

deliberate planning. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

deployment database. The Joint Operation Planning and Execution System database containing
the necessary information on forces, materiel, and filler and replacement personnel movement
requirements to support execution. The database reflects information contained in the refined
time-phased force and deployment data from the contingency planning process or developed
during the various phases of the crisis action planning process, and the movement schedules
or tables developed by the transportation component commands to support the deployment
of required forces, personnel, and materiel. (This term and its definition modify the existing
term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

deployment order. A planning directive from the Secretary of Defense, issued by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that authorizes and directs the transfer of forces between combatant
commands by reassignment or attachment. A deployment order normally specifies the
authority that the gaining combatant commander will exercise over the transferred forces.
Also called DEPORD. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition
and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

deployment planning. Operational planning directed toward the movement of forces and
sustainment resources from their original locations to a specific operational area for
conducting the joint operations contemplated in a given plan. Encompasses all activities
from origin or home station through destination, specifically including intra-continental
United States, intertheater, and intratheater movement legs, staging areas, and holding areas.
(JP 1-02)

GL-10 JP 5-0
 Glossary

deterrence. The prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind
brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction. (JP 1-02)

effect. 1. The physical or behavioral state of a system that results from an action, a set of actions, or
another effect. 2. The result, outcome, or consequence of an action. 3. A change to a condition,
behavior, or degree of freedom. (JP 1-02)

employment. The strategic, operational, or tactical use of forces. (JP 1-02)

employment planning. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

end state. The set of required conditions that defines achievement of the commander’s objectives.
(JP 1-02)

essential task. In the context of joint operation planning, a specified or implied task that an
organization must perform to accomplish the mission. An essential task is typically included
in the mission statement. See also implied task; specified task. (Approved for inclusion in
the next edition of JP 1-02.)

estimate. 1. An analysis of a foreign situation, development, or trend that identifies its major
elements, interprets the significance, and appraises the future possibilities and the prospective
results of the various actions that might be taken. 2. An appraisal of the capabilities,
vulnerabilities, and potential courses of action of a foreign nation or combination of nations
in consequence of a specific national plan, policy, decision, or contemplated course of
action. 3. An analysis of an actual or contemplated clandestine operation in relation to the
situation in which it is or would be conducted in order to identify and appraise such factors
as available as well as needed assets and potential obstacles, accomplishments, and
consequences. (JP 1-02)

execute order. 1. An order issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the direction
of the Secretary of Defense, to implement a decision by the President to initiate military
operations. 2. An order to initiate military operations as directed. Also called EXORD.
(This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

execution planning. The Joint Operation Planning and Execution System translation of an approved
course of action into an executable plan of action through the preparation of a complete operation
plan or operation order. Execution planning is detailed planning for the commitment of specified
forces and resources. During crisis action planning, an approved operation plan or other approved
course of action is adjusted, refined, and translated into an operation order. Execution planning
can proceed on the basis of prior contingency planning, or it can take place in the absence of prior
planning. Also called EP. See also Joint Operation Planning and Execution System. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

GL-11
Glossary

feasibility. The joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether the assigned mission can be
accomplished using available resources within the time contemplated by the plan. (This term and
its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

fires. The use of weapon systems to create a specific lethal or nonlethal effect on a target. (JP
1-02)

flexible deterrent option. A planning construct intended to facilitate early decision making by
developing a wide range of interrelated responses that begin with deterrent-oriented actions
carefully tailored to produce a desired effect. The flexible deterrent option is the means by
which the various diplomatic, information, military, and economic deterrent measures
available to the President are included in the joint operation planning process. Also called
FDO. (JP 1-02)

force planning. 1. Planning associated with the creation and maintenance of military capabilities.
It is primarily the responsibility of the Military Departments, Services, and US Special
Operations Command and is conducted under the administrative control that runs from the
Secretary of Defense to the Military Departments and Services. 2. In the Joint Operation
Planning and Execution System, the planning conducted by the supported combatant
command and its components to determine required force capabilities to accomplish an
assigned mission, as well as by the Military Departments, Services, and Service component
commands of the combatant commands, to develop forces lists, source and tailor required
force capabilities with actual units, identify and resolve shortfalls, and determine the routing
and time-phasing of forces into the operational area. (This term and its definition modify
the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

force projection. The ability to project the military instrument of national power from the
United States or another theater, in response to requirements for military operations. (This
term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

fragmentary order. An abbreviated form of an operation order issued as needed after an

operation order to change or modify that order or to execute a branch or sequel to that order.
Also called FRAGORD. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

friendly force information requirement. Information the commander and staff need to
understand the status of friendly force and supporting capabilities. Also called FFIR. (JP
1-02)

functional component command. A command normally, but not necessarily, composed of forces of
two or more Military Departments which may be established across the range of military operations

GL-12 JP 5-0
 Glossary

to perform particular operational missions that may be of short duration or may extend over a
period of time. (JP 1-02)

functional plans. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

governing factors. In the context of joint operation planning, those aspects of the situation (or
externally imposed factors) that the commander deems critical to the accomplishment of
the mission. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

host-nation support. Civil and/or military assistance rendered by a nation to foreign forces
within its territory during peacetime, crises or emergencies, or war based on agreements
mutually concluded between nations. Also called HNS. (JP 1-02)

implementation planning. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

implied task. In the context of joint operation planning, a task derived during mission analysis
that an organization must perform or prepare to perform to accomplish a specified task or
the mission, but which is not stated in the higher headquarters order. See also essential task;
specified task. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

information operations. The integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic

warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and
operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence,
disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting
our own. Also called IO. See also operations security; psychological operations. (JP 1-02)

instruments of national power. All of the means available to the government in its pursuit of
national objectives. They are expressed as diplomatic, economic, informational and military.
(JP 1-02)

integration. 1. In force projection, the synchronized transfer of units into an operational

commander’s force prior to mission execution. 2. The arrangement of military forces and
their actions to create a force that operates by engaging as a whole. 3. In photography, a
process by which the average radar picture seen on several scans of the time base may be
obtained on a print, or the process by which several photographic images are combined into
a single image. (JP 1-02)

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. An activity that synchronizes and integrates

the planning and operation of sensors, assets, and processing, exploitation, and dissemination
systems in direct support of current and future operations. This is an integrated intelligence
and operations function. Also called ISR. (JP 1-02)

interagency coordination. Within the context of Department of Defense involvement, the coordination
that occurs between elements of Department of Defense, and engaged US Government agencies
for the purpose of achieving an objective. (JP 1-02)

GL-13
Glossary

interdiction. An action to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemy’s military potential before it can
be used effectively against friendly forces, or to otherwise achieve objectives. (JP 1-02)

joint. Connotes activities, operations, organizations, etc., in which elements of two or more
Military Departments participate. (JP 1-02)

joint fires. Fires delivered during the employment of forces from two or more components in
coordinated action to produce desired effects in support of a common objective. (JP 1-02)

joint force. A general term applied to a force composed of significant elements, assigned or
attached, of two or more Military Departments, operating under a single joint force
commander. (JP 1-02)

joint force commander. A general term applied to a combatant commander, subunified

commander, or joint task force commander authorized to exercise combatant command
(command authority) or operational control over a joint force. Also called JFC. See also
joint force. (JP 1-02)

joint intelligence preparation of the operational environment. The analytical process used
by joint intelligence organizations to produce intelligence assessments, estimates, and other
intelligence products in support of the joint force commander’s decision making process. It
is a continuous process that includes defining the operational environment, describing the
effects of the operational environment, evaluating the adversary, and determining and
describing adversary potential courses of action. Also called JIPOE. (This term and its
definition are provided for information and are proposed for inclusion in the next edition of
JP 1-02 by JP 2-01.3.)

joint intelligence support element. A subordinate joint force element whose focus is on
intelligence support for joint operations, providing the joint force commander, joint staff,
and components with the complete air, space, ground, and maritime adversary situation.
Also called JISE. (JP 1-02)

joint interagency coordination group. An interagency staff group that establishes regular,
timely, and collaborative working relationships between civilian and military operational
planners. Composed of US Government civilian and military experts accredited to the
combatant commander and tailored to meet the requirements of a supported combatant
commander, the joint interagency coordination group provides the combatant commander
with the capability to collaborate at the operational level with other US Government civilian
agencies and departments. Also called JIACG. (JP 1-02)

joint operation planning. Planning activities associated joint military operations by combatant
commanders and their subordinate joint force commanders in response to contingencies
and crises. Joint operation planning includes planning for the mobilization, deployment,
employment, sustainment, redeployment, and demobilization of joint forces. (This term

GL-14 JP 5-0
 Glossary

and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

Joint Operation Planning and Execution System. A system of joint policies, procedures, and
reporting structures, supported by communications and computer systems, that is used by
the joint planning and execution community to monitor, plan, and execute mobilization,
deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment, and demobilization activities
associated with joint operations. Also called JOPES. See also joint operation planning;
joint planning and execution community. (This term and its definition modify the existing
term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

joint operation planning process. An orderly, analytical process that consists of a logical set
of steps to analyze a mission; develop, analyze, and compare alternative courses of action
against criteria of success and each other; select the best course of action; and produce a
joint operation plan or order. Also called JOPP. See also joint operation planning. (This
term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

joint operations. A general term to describe military actions conducted by joint forces, or by
Service forces in relationships (e.g., support, coordinating authority), which, of themselves,
do not establish joint forces. (JP 1-02)

joint planning and execution community. Those headquarters, commands, and agencies
involved in the training, preparation, mobilization, deployment, employment, support,
sustainment, redeployment, and demobilization of military forces assigned or committed to
a joint operation. It consists of the Joint Staff, the Services and their major commands
(including the Service wholesale logistics commands), the combatant commands (and their
Service component commands), the subordinate unified commands and other subordinate
joint forces of the combatant commands, and the combat support agencies. Also called
JPEC. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are
approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

joint planning group. A planning organization consisting of designated representatives of the

joint force headquarters principal and special staff sections, joint force components (Service
and/or functional), and other supporting organizations or agencies as deemed necessary by
the joint force commander. Also called JPG. (This term and its definition modify the
existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan. The Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan provides guidance to the
combatant commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to accomplish tasks and missions based on
current military capabilities. It apportions limited forces and resources to combatant commanders,
based on military capabilities resulting from completed program and budget actions and intelligence
assessments. The Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan provides a coherent framework for capabilities-
based military advice provided to the President and Secretary of Defense. Also called JSCP. See

GL-15
Glossary

also combatant commander; joint. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

Joint Strategic Planning System. One of the primary means by which the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the combatant commanders, carries out the statutory responsibilities to assist the President
and Secretary of Defense in providing strategic direction to the Armed Forces; prepares
strategic plans; prepares and reviews joint operation plans; advises the President and Secretary
of Defense on requirements, programs, and budgets; and provides net assessment on the
capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States and its allies as compared with those
of their potential adversaries. Also called JSPS. (This term and its definition modify the
existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

leverage. In the context of joint operation planning, a relative advantage in combat power and/
or other circumstances against the adversary across one or more domains (air, land, sea, and
space) and/or the information environment sufficient to exploit that advantage. Leverage is
an element of operational design. See also operational art; operational design. (Approved
for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

line of communications. A route, either land, water, and/or air, that connects an operating
military force with a base of operations and along which supplies and military forces move.
Also called LOC. (JP 1-02)

line of operations. 1. A logical line that connects actions on nodes and/or decisive points
related in time and purpose with an objective(s). 2. A physical line that defines the interior
or exterior orientation of the force in relation to the enemy or that connects actions on nodes
and/or decisive points related in time and space to an objective(s). Also called LOO. (JP 1-
02)

link. 1. A behavioral, physical, or functional relationship between nodes. 2. In communications,

a general term used to indicate the existence of communications facilities between two
points. 3. A maritime route, other than a coastal or transit route, which links any two or
more routes. See also node. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

maintain. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

major operation. A series of tactical actions (battles, engagements, strikes) conducted by combat
forces of a single or several Services, coordinated in time and place, to achieve strategic or
operational objectives in an operational area. These actions are conducted simultaneously
or sequentially in accordance with a common plan and are controlled by a single commander.
For noncombat operations, a reference to the relative size and scope of a military operation.
(JP 1-02)

GL-16 JP 5-0
 Glossary

maneuver. 1. A movement to place ships, aircraft, or land forces in a position of advantage over the
enemy. 2. A tactical exercise carried out at sea, in the air, on the ground, or on a map in imitation
of war. 3. The operation of a ship, aircraft, or vehicle, to cause it to perform desired movements.
4. Employment of forces in the operational area through movement in combination with fires to
achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission. (JP 1-
02)

measure of effectiveness. A criterion used to assess changes in system behavior, capability, or

operational environment that is tied to measuring the attainment of an end state, achievement
of an objective, or creation of an effect. Also called MOE. See also measure of performance.
(JP 1-02)

measure of performance. A criterion used to assess friendly actions that is tied to measuring
task accomplishment. Also called MOP. See also measure of effectiveness. (JP 1-02)

mission. 1. The task, together with the purpose, that clearly indicates the action to be taken and the
reason therefore. 2. In common usage, especially when applied to lower military units, a duty
assigned to an individual or unit; a task. 3. The dispatching of one or more aircraft to accomplish
one particular task. See also mission statement. (JP 1-02)

mission statement. A short sentence or paragraph that describes the organization’s essential
task (or tasks) and purpose—a clear statement of the action to be taken and the reason for
doing so. The mission statement contains the elements of who, what, when, where, and
why, but seldom specifies how. See also mission. (Approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

multinational. Between two or more forces or agencies of two or more nations or coalition
partners. See also coalition. (JP 1-02)

multinational operations. A collective term to describe military actions conducted by forces

of two or more nations, usually undertaken within the structure of a coalition or alliance.
See also alliance, coalition. (JP 1-02)

national defense strategy. A document approved by the Secretary of Defense for applying the
Armed Forces of the United States in coordination with Department of Defense agencies
and other instruments of national power to achieve national security strategy objectives.
Also called NDS. (JP 1-02)

national military strategy. A document approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
for distributing and applying military power to attain national security strategy and national
defense strategy objectives. Also called NMS. (JP 1-02)

national policy. A broad course of action or statements of guidance adopted by the government at the
national level in pursuit of national objectives. (JP 1-02)

GL-17
Glossary

national security strategy. A document approved by the President of the United States for developing,
applying, and coordinating the instruments of national power to achieve objectives that contribute
to national security. Also called NSS. See also national military strategy. (JP 1-02)

node. 1. A location in a mobility system where a movement requirement is originated,

processed for onward movement, or terminated. 2. In communications and computer
systems, the physical location that provides terminating, switching, and gateway access
services to support information exchange. 3. An element of a system that represents a
person, place, or physical thing. See also link. (JP 1-02)

nuclear planning system. A system composed of personnel, directives, and electronic data
processing systems to directly support geographic nuclear combatant commanders in
developing, maintaining, and disseminating nuclear operation plans. (JP 1-02)

objective. 1. The clearly defined, decisive, and attainable goal toward which every operation is
directed. 2. The specific target of the action taken (for example, a definite terrain feature,
the seizure or holding of which is essential to the commander’s plan, or, an enemy force or
capability without regard to terrain features). (This term and its definition modify the
existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

operation. 1. A military action or the carrying out of a strategic, operational, tactical, service,
training, or administrative military mission. 2. The process of carrying on combat, including
movement, supply, attack, defense, and maneuvers needed to gain the objectives of any
battle or campaign. (JP 1-02)

operational area. An overarching term encompassing more descriptive terms for geographic
areas in which military operations are conducted. Operational areas include, but are not
limited to, such descriptors as area of responsibility, theater of war, theater of operations,
joint operations area, amphibious objective area, joint special operations area, and area of
operations. Also called OA. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

operational art. The application of creative imagination by commanders and staffs — supported
by their skill, knowledge, and experience — to design strategies, campaigns, and major
operations and organize and employ military forces. Operational art integrates ends, ways,
and means across the levels of war. See also operational design. (JP 1-02)

operational control. Command authority that may be exercised by commanders at any echelon
at or below the level of combatant command. Operational control is inherent in combatant
command (command authority) and may be delegated within the command. When forces
are transferred between combatant commands, the command relationship the gaining commander
will exercise (and the losing commander will relinquish) over these forces must be specified by the
Secretary of Defense. Operational control is the authority to perform those functions of command
over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks,

GL-18 JP 5-0
 Glossary

designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.
Operational control includes authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations and joint
training necessary to accomplish missions assigned to the command. Operational control should
be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is
exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component
commanders. Operational control normally provides full authority to organize commands and
forces and to employ those forces as the commander in operational control considers necessary to
accomplish assigned missions; it does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics
or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training. Also called OPCON.
See also combatant command; combatant command (command authority); tactical control. (JP
1-02)

operational design. The conception and construction of the framework that underpins a campaign
or major operation plan and its subsequent execution. See also operational art. (JP 1-02)

operational design element. A key consideration used in operational design. (JP 1-02)

operational environment. A composite of the conditions, circumstances, and influences that

affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the commander. (JP
1-02)

operational level of war. The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned,
conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational
areas. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives
needed to achieve the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational
objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events.
See also strategic level of war; tactical level of war. (JP 1-02)

operational limitation. An action required or prohibited by higher authority, such as a constraint

or a restraint, and other restrictions that limit the commander’s freedom of action, such as
diplomatic agreements, rules of engagement, political and economic conditions in affected
countries, and host nation issues. See also constraint; restraint. (Approved for inclusion in
the next edition of JP 1-02.)

operational pause. A temporary halt in operations. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition
of JP 1-02.)

operational reach. The distance and duration across which a unit can successfully employ
military capabilities. (JP 1-02)

operation order. A directive issued by a commander to subordinate commanders for the purpose of
effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. Also called OPORD. (JP 1-02)

operation plan. 1. Any plan for the conduct of military operations prepared in response to actual and
potential contingencies. 2. In the context of joint operation planning level 4 planning detail, a

GL-19
Glossary

complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the concept of operations, all
annexes applicable to the plan, and a time-phased force and deployment data. It identifies the
specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure
estimates for their flow into the theater. Also called OPLAN. See also operation order. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02.)

operations security. A process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing

friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: a. identify those
actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; b. determine indicators
that adversary intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced
together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries; and c. select
and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities
of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. Also called OPSEC. (JP 1-02)

phase. In joint operation planning, a definitive stage of an operation or campaign during which
a large portion of the forces and capabilities are involved in similar or mutually supporting
activities for a common purpose. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

planning order. A planning directive that provides essential planning guidance and directs the
initiation of execution planning before the directing authority approves a military course of
action. Also called PLANORD. See also execution planning. (This term and its definition
modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition
of JP 1-02.)

prepare to deploy order. An order issued by competent authority to move forces or prepare
forces for movement (e.g., increase deployability posture of units). Also called PTDO.
(This term and its definition modify the existing term “deployment preparation order” and
its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

priority intelligence requirement. An intelligence requirement, stated as a priority for

intelligence support, that the commander and staff need to understand the adversary or the
operational environment. Also called PIR. (This term and its definition modify the existing
term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

psychological operations. Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign
audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of
foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations
is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.
Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02)

readiness planning. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

GL-20 JP 5-0
 Glossary

restraint. In the context of joint operation planning, a requirement placed on the command by a higher
command that prohibits an action, thus restricting freedom of action. See also constraint; operational
limitation. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

retain. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

risk. 1. Probability and severity of loss linked to hazards. (JP 1-02)

rules of engagement. Directives issued by competent military authority that delineate the
circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue
combat engagement with other forces encountered. Also called ROE. (JP 1-02)

security cooperation. All Department of Defense interactions with foreign defense

establishments to build defense relationships that promote specific US security interests,
develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations,
and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to a host nation. See also
security cooperation planning. (JP 1-02)

security cooperation planning. The subset of joint strategic planning conducted to support the
Department of Defense’s security cooperation program. This planning supports a combatant
commander’s theater strategy. See also security cooperation. (Approved for inclusion in
the next edition of JP 1-02.)

sequel. In a campaign, a major operation that follows the current major operation. In a single
major operation, a sequel is the next phase. Plans for a sequel are based on the possible
outcomes (success, stalemate, or defeat) associated with the current operation. See also
branch. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are
approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

Service component command. A command consisting of the Service component commander

and all those Service forces, such as individuals, units, detachments, organizations, and
installations under that command, including the support forces that have been assigned to a
combatant command or further assigned to a subordinate unified command or joint task
force. (JP 1-02)

special operations-peculiar. Equipment, material, supplies, and services required for special
operations missions for which there is no Service-common requirement. These are limited
to items and services initially designed for, or used by, special operations forces until adopted
for Service-common use by one or more Military Service; modifications approved by the
Commander, US Special Operations Command for application to standard items and services
used by the Military Services; and items and services approved by the Commander, US
Special Operations Command as critically urgent for the immediate accomplishment of a
special operations mission. Also called SO-peculiar. (JP 1-02)

GL-21
Glossary

specified task. In the context of joint operation planning, a task that is specifically assigned to an
organization by its higher headquarters. See also essential task; implied task. (Approved for
inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

stability operations. An overarching term encompassing various military missions, tasks, and activities
conducted outside the United States in coordination with other instruments of national power to
maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services,
emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. (JP 1-02)

strategic communication. Focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage
key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement
of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated
programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all
instruments of national power. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its
definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

strategic direction. The common thread that integrates and synchronizes the activities of the
Joint Staff, combatant commands, Services, and combat support agencies. As an overarching
term, strategic direction encompasses the processes and products by which the President,
Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provide strategic guidance
in the form of various strategic products. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP
1-02.)

strategic level of war. The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group of
nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security
objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to achieve these objectives.
Activities at this level establish national and multinational military objectives; sequence
initiatives; define limits and assess risks for the use of military and other instruments of
national power; develop global plans or theater war plans to achieve these objectives; and
provide military forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans. See also
operational level of war; tactical level of war. (JP 1-02)

strategy. A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a
synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational
objectives. (JP 1-02)

strategy determination. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

support. 1. The action of a force that aids, protects, complements, or sustains another force in
accordance with a directive requiring such action. 2. A unit that helps another unit in battle.
3. An element of a command that assists, protects, or supplies other forces in combat. (JP
1-02)

supported commander. 1. The commander having primary responsibility for all aspects of a task
assigned by the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan or other joint operation planning authority. In the

GL-22 JP 5-0
 Glossary

context of joint operation planning, this term refers to the commander who prepares operation
plans or operation orders in response to requirements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
2. In the context of a support command relationship, the commander who receives assistance from
another commander’s force or capabilities, and who is responsible for ensuring that the supporting
commander understands the assistance required. See also joint operation planning. (JP 1-02)

supporting commander. 1. A commander who provides augmentation forces or other support to a

supported commander or who develops a supporting plan. Includes the designated combatant
commands and Department of Defense agencies as appropriate. 2. In the context of a support
command relationship, the commander who aids, protects, complements, or sustains another
commander’s force, and who is responsible for providing the assistance required by the supported
commander. See also supported commander. (JP 1-02)

supporting plan. An operation plan prepared by a supporting commander, a subordinate

commander, or an agency to satisfy the requests or requirements of the supported
commander’s plan. See also supported commander; supporting commander. (This term
and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion
in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

sustainment. The provision of logistics and personnel services required to maintain and prolong
operations until successful mission accomplishment. (JP 1-02)

synchronization. 1. The arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce
maximum relative combat power at a decisive place and time. 2. In the intelligence context,
application of intelligence sources and methods in concert with the operation plan. (JP
1-02)

system. A functionally, physically, and/or behaviorally related group of regularly interacting or

interdependent elements; that group of elements forming a unified whole. (JP 1-02)

tactical control. Command authority over assigned or attached forces or commands, or military
capability or forces made available for tasking, that is limited to the detailed direction and
control of movements or maneuvers within the operational area necessary to accomplish
missions or tasks assigned. Tactical control is inherent in operational control. Tactical
control may be delegated to, and exercised at any level at or below the level of combatant
command. When forces are transferred between combatant commands, the command
relationship the gaining commander will exercise (and the losing commander will relinquish)
over these forces must be specified by the Secretary of Defense. Tactical control provides
sufficient authority for controlling and directing the application of force or tactical use of
combat support assets within the assigned mission or task. Also called TACON. See also combatant
command; combatant command (command authority); operational control. (JP 1-02)

tactical level of war. The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to
achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on

GL-23
Glossary

the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the
enemy to achieve combat objectives. See also operational level of war; strategic level of war. (JP
1-02)

targeting. The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to
them, considering commander’s objectives, operational requirements, capabilities, and limitations.
(This term and its definition are provided for information and are proposed for inclusion in the next
edition of JP 1-02 by JP 3-60.)

termination criteria. The specified standards approved by the President and/or the Secretary
of Defense that must be met before a joint operation can be concluded. (JP 1-02)

theater. The geographical area for which a commander of a combatant command has been
assigned responsibility. (JP 1-02)

theater of operations. An operational area defined by the geographic combatant commander

for the conduct or support of specific military operations. Multiple theaters of operations
normally will be geographically separate and focused on different missions. Theaters of
operations are usually of significant size, allowing for operations in depth and over extended
periods of time. Also called TO. See also theater of war. (JP 1-02)

theater of war. Defined by the Secretary of Defense or the geographic combatant commander,
the area of air, land, and water that is, or may become, directly involved in the conduct
of the war. A theater of war does not normally encompass the geographic combatant
commander’s entire area of responsibility and may contain more than one theater of
operations. See also theater of operations. (JP 1-02)

theater strategic environment. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP
1-02.)

theater strategy. Concepts and courses of action directed toward securing the objectives of
national and multinational policies and strategies through the synchronized and integrated
employment of military forces and other instruments of national power. See also national
military strategy; national security strategy. (JP 1-02)

time-phased force and deployment data. The Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
database portion of an operation plan; it contains time-phased force data, non-unit-related
cargo and personnel data, and movement data for the operation plan, including the following:
a. In-place units; b. Units to be deployed to support the operation plan with a priority indicating
the desired sequence for their arrival at the port of debarkation; c. Routing of forces to be
deployed; d. Movement data associated with deploying forces; e. Estimates of non-unit-
related cargo and personnel movements to be conducted concurrently with the deployment
of forces; and f. Estimate of transportation requirements that must be fulfilled by common-
user lift resources as well as those requirements that can be fulfilled by assigned or attached
transportation resources. Also called TPFDD. (JP 1-02)

GL-24 JP 5-0
 Glossary

unified action. A broad generic term that describes the wide scope of actions (including the
synchronization and/or integration of joint or multinational military operations with the
activities of local, state, and federal government agencies and intergovernmental and nongovernmental
organizations) directed by national civilian and military authorities and the commanders of unified
commands, subordinate unified commands, or joint task forces. (This term and its definition are
provided for information and are proposed for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02 by JP 1.)

unified command. A command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander
and composed of significant assigned components of two or more Military Departments,
that is established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense with
the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Also called unified
combatant command. (JP 1-02)

Unified Command Plan. The document, approved by the President, that sets forth basic guidance
to all unified combatant commanders; establishes their missions, responsibilities, and force
structure; delineates the general geographical area of responsibility for geographic combatant
commanders; and specifies functional responsibilities for functional combatant commanders.
Also called UCP. See also combatant command; combatant commander. (JP 1-02)

warning order. 1. A preliminary notice of an order or action that is to follow. 2. A planning

directive that initiates the development and evaluation of military courses of action by a
supported commander and requests that the supported commander submit a commander’s
estimate. 3. A planning directive that describes the situation, allocates forces and resources,
establishes command relationships, provides other initial planning guidance, and initiates
subordinate unit mission planning. Also called WARNORD. (This term and its definition
modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition
of JP 1-02.)

GL-25
Glossary

Intentionally Blank

GL-26 JP 5-0
 JOINT DOCTRINE PUBLICATIONS HIERARCHY
JP 1

JOINT
WARFARE

JP 0-2

UNAAF

JP 1-0 JP 2-0 JP 3-0 JP 4-0 JP 5-0 JP 6-0

COMMUNICATIONS
PERSONNEL INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS LOGISTICS PLANS SYSTEM

All joint doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures are organized into a comprehensive hierarchy as
shown in the chart above. Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 is the Plans keystone publication. The diagram below
illustrates an overview of the development process:

STEP #1
Project Proposal
STEP #5 l Submitted by Services, combatant commands, or STEP #2
Assessments/Revision Joint Staff to fill extant operational void Program Directive
l J-7 validates requirement with Services and
l The combatant commands receive l J-7 formally staffs with
combatant commands
the JP and begin to assess it during Services and combatant
use l J-7 initiates Program Directive commands
l 18 to 24 months following l Includes scope of project,
publication, the Director J-7, will references, milestones, and
solicit a written report from the who will develop drafts
combatant commands and
Services on the utility and quality of l J-7 releases Program
each JP and the need for any Directive to Lead Agent.
urgent changes or earlier-than- Lead Agent can be Service,
scheduled revisions combatant command or
Joint Staff (JS) Directorate
l No later than 5 years after
development, each JP is revised
Project
Proposal

Assess- Program
ments/ Directive
Revision
ENHANCED
JOINT
JOINT
WARFIGHTING DOCTRINE
CAPABILITY PUBLICATION
CJCS Two
Approval Drafts

STEP #4 STEP #3
CJCS Approval Two Drafts
l Lead Agent forwards proposed pub to Joint Staff l Lead Agent selects Primary Review Authority
(PRA) to develop the pub
l Joint Staff takes responsibility for pub, makes
required changes and prepares pub for l PRA develops two draft pubs
coordination with Services and combatant
commands l PRA staffs each draft with combatant
commands, Services, and Joint Staff
l Joint Staff conducts formal staffing for approval
as a JP